Some have blogged about getting the Grandpa Simpson label to stick to McCain.  McCain is old.  He's tired.  He's crabby.  He's crazy.  He loves Matlock.  If elected, it's possible that he'll attempt to eliminate 2 states...starting with Missouri.   McCain and Abe Simpson are just alike.  So, a small campaign has been started to help make the label stick.  Watch and disseminate...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wW5Eqycf4d4

From the Lancaster Sunday News:
Obama draws thousands to train station
Between 7-10k show up...

From the Harrisburg Patriot-News:
Obama at Capitol: 'We will change the world'
More than 4k show up...

Trade issues score for Clinton in York
About 1k folks jammed onto a street downtown...

From the York Daily Record:
Clinton: I'll bring back peace and prosperity

If the size and make up of the crowds are to be believed, I think Obama might just pull this off...

Except, vote for Barack Obama and let's get this over with.

One can imagine at least two reasons that Hannity wanted Stephanopoulos to ask certain questions. First, the idea was to catch Obama off-guard and get him to either (1) make an overly general statement about guilt by association that would protect McCain from the Keating 5 controversy, (2) make the good visual that Karl Rove has been publicly seeking connecting the weathermen to Obama or (3) both.

The second reason that Hannity and the GOP needed the question asked is more nefarious: the GOP is exploiting the ongoing Democratic nomination fight to enable the soft-racist campaign against Obama to go forward blessed by the liberal white establishment. Certainly, most white middle-class baby-boomers have a gut reaction against blatant racism.  But, subtler forms of racism still exist to be capitalized on by amoral operatives like Hannity and Rove. 

Thanks to Stephanopoulos, the GOP now has cover to push their campaign of racism by another name (RBAN). Rove and Hannity used Stephanopoulos to open the door to their general election strategy. Buchanan will continue to talk about reverse discrimination and try to inflame blue collar America.  And the GOP can now take advantage of the fact that any successful African-American politician in the U.S. is going to have met and/or worked with African-American figures that are controversial to the white community (i.e. most of the prominent African-American leaders from the 60s and 70s). Oh, and it's not coordinated because they're all just making their own statements on television for all to see. No back room required.

That's the way it is folks. Stephanopoulos got played. If McCain wins, we'll have old George to thank for opening the door to the Western Pennsylvania strategy, calculated to bring you 4 more years of Republicans and 40 years of the most conservative supreme court since the early 1900s. He'll get to keep his job, of course. The question is: will you?

Of course, McCain won't win -- Obama will still beat him.

I apologize for some of the vulgarity in this post.  But some issues simply demand it.

More good news from McClatchy:

While working in Iraq as a ''morale coordinator'' for a U.S. government contractor, a Tampa woman says, she was raped by a drunken colleague who secured a key to her apartment from an unlocked storage box.

That was in December 2005, and her attorney said he's unaware of any criminal charges in the case.

Three words: a fucking travesty.  No criminal charges?  How about a reprimand?  You know, a slap on the wrist coupled with a "Now don't you go raping these women again."  It's not just that our own female servicemen in Iraq are getting raped by our own soldiers.  It's that no one is doing a goddam thing about it.  No one has ever even been charged.  Any soldier found to have sexually assaulted one of his female comrades oughta be strung up from the highest branch by his flimsy, tiny cock.

The men that go out there everyday to serve their country have a courage most of us could never understand.  But the leaders overseeing them are the most cowardly, gutless, pathetic, snails to slime their way across the desert.

Statistics show that nearly one out of six women is sexually assaulted.  I guess we've got other priorities, though, like decimating an entire nation and leaving their female population at the hands of fanatical religious zealots more concerned with some damn words written in a book than they are with genuine human life.  Not dressed right?  Kill her!  Must be nice for a sociopath to disguise himself as devoutly religious, or as a loyal patriot fighting for his country's future.

''We've got a problem that justice is breaking down here,'' said Nelson, whose wife Grace and daughter Nan Ellen watched grimly as the women testified about being raped -- and in one case, discouraged from reporting the attack.

There's no such thing as justice in war.  There's just bloodshed and chaos that brings out the darkest elements in man.  For every soldier who will drop his body against an explosive to save his comrades.  There's another soldier who will kill a native for no reason.  This goes all the way back to Joseph Heller's Heart of Darkness.  We all like to think that civilization is something we carry inside of us.  But civilization quickly dissipates in the face of unruleable chaos.  Read Thomas Hobbes.

The agency is starting (STARTING!) an ''effort to increase awareness, enhance accountability and ultimately to deter this kind of behavior,'' said Robert Reed, an associate deputy general counsel.

Nelson, who questioned whether military contracts require companies to provide training on how to handle sexual assault complaints, called the program a ``step in the right direction.''

But, he noted, ``We're in the fifth year of a war. Why wouldn't we have made sure that every member of the total armed forces was aware already?''

Because they didn't think about it, and they didn't give a shit about it.  You can apply the same reasoning to why this war was begun with such poor evidence, planned with such complete incompetence, and turned over to party loyalists rather than the most knowledgeable, competent advisers.

Good work guys.  Those women will be reliving those rapes in the dreams for years to come.  All because you're too fucking stupid to prevent it and too fucking frightened to prosecute it.  These women aren't the boy who cried wolf.  I can assure you, they're not doing this for attention.  Get you fucking act together.  I'm tired of being ashamed of my country.

**For more information on the preveleance of rape in our country, visit the RAINN website.  And if you've been a victim, please seek help.  I've seen it do wonders for people.  It can be a hard step to take, but it's greatly worth it.  And if you believe in this issue, please keep this diary towards the top by recommending it.  It's surprising how quiet women will keep about such a terrible experience.  It's important to know that there are many more out there just like you.**

--Cross Posted at The Left Anchor

The media has been very hard on Obama, and unfairly so, for over six weeks now.
 If you recall, it started when Clinton starting working the refs and throwing the kitchen sink at him in the run up to Texas.


Now, scrutiny and tough questions are fine. My problems with this are several:

- Why "vet" candidates serially, ie one at a time. They were hard on Hillary at the end of 2007 and in January. Then it became Obama's turn. (Will McCain ever have his turn?) I don't get the need to one-sidedly bash and attack one candidate.

- Unfair standards. For the most part, Obama's personal and professional conduct is not in question, unlike McCain and Hillary. It has been his friends and associates. In contrast, Hillary and McCain's friends and associates are not a topic of inquiry. Likewise, McCain's gaffes are quickly papered over, while Obama's occassional slips are beaten to death.

- Does anyone else think this has gone on too long, has been disproportionate, and amount to the media trying to game the election? Will McCain ever get "vetted" to this extent?

- Call me paranoid but I get the impression that the MSM is not intent on really helping Hillary, who they don't like that much. But on unltimately helping McCain.

Thoughts?

It has been most noticeable in the 24/7 news wars that election coverage brings out more talking and time filling by pundits and reporters as they dispense with other forms of news. They need to fill vast amounts of time with less and less information. Naturally, conversational qualities take over as there are a limited number of topics to discuss. What has struck me in the last few years is that talking heads have a tendency to repeat things that they have heard, many times repeating each other. It is brought into specific relief by the vocabulary we hear. People are very identifiable in terms of their facility with language by their vocabulary.

It is almost like an educational fingerprint. When you hear words that you know, but almost never hear in normal conversation, they sort of stand out. It seems with each election the heads listen to each other, and some “good word” they almost forgot creeps into the lexicon. I find it ironic that the major complaint about the blogosphere is that it is “rampant opinion with little means of verifiable of fact” and yet I don’t see a lot of difference when it comes to television. At least in the blogosphere you can talk back, and it is fairly simple to see who has the conviction of a good argument. On television you are left with little gems just hitting the speaker of your TV with a thud.

In the last election cycle the word was “gravitas”. Now I have known that word since I was a child and my father threw Latin at me all the time – don’t ask me why – but “gravitas” is a word that does not enjoy common usage. When you hear it over and over again it becomes annoyingly repetitive, and you start noticing who is parroting the new word. The new word this year is actually two words, but still in Latin. Saying “bona fides” is the way to preen your intellectual feathers this year, and it has the additional quality of pointing out who actually had a good education by how it is pronounced. I’ve heard a few mangled versions that made me wonder. Are these people not lawyers, or have they simply never been to mass? I am neither Catholic, nor an attorney, but I still get it – must be the musician’s ear. While I find all of this irritating, in a slightly humorous way, there is a phrase that has crept into everyone’s lexicon that has me seeing red. In both the blogosphere and in television coverage, not so much in print, people are quick to throw around the expression “drinking the Kool-Aid”.

At first I didn’t think much of it as people were just referring to the delusional qualities of Obama supporters. Since I am an Obama precinct captain I am well aware that we are not delusional – we just want the agreed upon, current primary/caucas system to decide who wins. From our perspective it is the Clintonites that are delusional. How can you even want a candidacy that is at the expense of everyone else? It is just un-American, or at least delusional. But as I heard this phrase over and over something started haunting me. What was haunting me was my own educational fingerprint, my own understanding of the real meaning of “drinking the Kool-Aid”.

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area and November, 1978 was the month that we were all left numb. As we experienced the shock of Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone being assassinated in Moscone’s office by Supervisor Dan White, we were still ringing from the enormous shock of the Jonestown Massacre. These events happened within nine days of each other. Congressman Leo Ryan had led reporters and a delegation of concerned relatives to Guyana to investigate reports of mind control and imprisonment. The congressman and three others were murdered as they were about to fly home to report their findings. Subsequently, the people following the Rev. Jim Jones committed suicide. The majority of the members of the People’s Temple in Jonestown, Guyana were from San Francisco. The community was reeling. This one horrific act of mass suicide involving between 913 and 1100 people was achieved by “drinking Kool-Aid” laced with cyanide.

Maybe I didn’t catch on to the level of cynicism in this phrase because of some long term PTSD over my own regional history. Maybe, for a while, I just forgot through my own participation in collective amnesia. But in repetition, I am remembering. As far as the press using this phrase – they have no excuse. While many covering this election may be younger, many are not. In either case we depend on the press to at least be able to look at their archives for the stories that inform our language. For the rest of us there needs to be more reflection. If you are old enough to remember Jonestown, please think twice before rattling off that phrase as merely a way of explaining something you find unfathomable. If you are not old enough to remember, the web is replete with information on this gruesome mass death and it is easy to research. All you have to do is Google “Jonestown”. As we fire-off opinions to each other on our wonderful blogosphere let us show more originality than the mainstream media we love to trash. Let us not repeat a phrase that has no business being used so casually, and has no business describing the informed support of historic candidates. Let’s not drink the Kool-Aid, and let’s not say we did.

What evidence is there to show that McCain can rip Obama to shreds? Everyone has been saying that Hillary has been using all of the GOP attack approaches however I am yet to see one of them that floored Obama. Absolutely NONE. Either she is using the GOP attacks or she aint. So far none of them work. So what makes anyone believe that they will work with McCain?

Secondly, some people speak of Obama in Messianic tones. Well if Obama can be seen in such a light how shall we see Rove then? It is such an odd thing that everytime we think we hear the word ROVE that the DEMS seem to run into this huge panic mode like as if the sky is falling. We seem to cower and whimper and start that rattling of teeth thing. What makes Rove so powerful that he can take an entire party and its supporters and send them scampering like chickens without heads?

Can it not be that Rove has now met his match in Obama? Is it not possible that Obama's approach can easily knock the wind out of Rove's sails?

Come on peoples.. give yourself a chance.. get some back bone and some spine and look to the Obama campaign and Obama himself to reap resounding success over McCain and put this ROVE whimpering to rest.. ONCE AND FOR ALL..

Quite frankly, I think Rove's success is based purely on a weak and timid democratic party and its weak and timid supporters, beyond this I think he is an average joe. The day the DEMS begin to fight back, Rove's credentials will come to naught. Look for this to happen when Obama starts to challenge McCain directly, once Hillary is gone.

Cheers

The cabal just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
The New York Times reports

Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Full report here

Before your eyes, without noticing, the "mangled" words of Obama are repeated, then distorted, memorialized in the MSM, until it is fictionalized into the consciousness of American voters.

If you believe what Hillary and the MSM are saying, Obama said people cling to guns and religion out of bitterness. 

Really?  When I listened to the tape, it seemed he said people cling to them as they make voting decisions (versus other issues where national politicians have continually lied and not delivered on.  These are the issues they can count on to be Heard- local political issues where they feel their vote can't be mortgaged by doublespeaking politicians). 

A huge difference, no?  One is a critique of a lifestyle choice based on insecurity, another is an observation on how voting decisions are made, especially when those votes contradict economic self interest and other common vote drivers.

So, a note to MSM, that is not what he said nor what he meant.  Its a lie, and most of the perpetrators know it, but that doesnt stop the message.  Bill Maher, for example who on this week's Real Time got it all wrong.   And those l

And keep your ears open.  This isnt unique to Obama, its an example of a larger and uglier point.  The distortion is so insidious and ingrained it becomes unnoticed.  More and more we are told how you should remember history and judge it (orwell rolls over in his grave).  As the media consolidation continues, and right wing strategies get more effective, the less the most observant of us notice the mutation from fact to propaganda. 

Im glad places like this help keep the establishment message accountable.  It helps me make sure people know that George S. is wrong- Obama didnt apologize for the comments themselves, just the phrasing, there was nothing to apologize for.

This is so wrong on so many levels if it hadn’t occurred during the Cheney administration I would be really amazed at the audacity, as well as really appalled. One of the hallmarks of fascism is the interlacing of government and corporate interests.  Another is government propaganda.

David Barstow has a really long piece up on the NYT web site reporting the Pentagon’s use of retired military brass, who serve as network TV “military analysts and often lobbyists for military vendors, as propagandists.  The Pentagon has provided these retired officers with classified information and taken them on “briefing” trips to Guantanamo, Iraq, and elsewhere to ensure they hew the party line when appearing as network analysts and the analysts often used the information obtained; and the analysts have often used the information so obtained and their access to Pentagon officials to further the interest of the military vendors they represent.

So the next time you listen to one of these “analysts”, remember many of them are mobbed up.

From Baldwin Park Democrat:
http://baldwinparkdemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/04/another-internet-swiftboat-attack-on.html

I wonder if any Muckraker could find out about the email signatories; are they real? What's thier story.

This interview provides further proof why ABC should have made Steph recuse himself. Notice, this is May 2007. And notice the points he brings up which Hillary later indeed did bring up. The interview started with the military, is the country ready for him, and yes, Obama was asked how much of his 'cool style' is because he is black.

SENATOR BARACK OBAMA ON “THIS WEEK WITH GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS” from ABC News... MAY 13, 2007

...

STEPHANOPOULOS: When we sat down in Des Moines, I asked Obama where he got that confidence.

...

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think it comes from the set of experiences that I brought with me to this race.

As somebody who worked as a community organizer in Chicago, not knowing anybody when I arrived and being able to pull people together around the issues that folks were facing after they'd gotten laid off of work; the work that I've done as a civil rights lawyer and a constitutional law professor.

And then in the state senate, being able to get Democrats and Republicans together around tough issues like reforming the death penalty or expanding health insurance for kids -- those skills seem to have translated in Washington.

...Did Someone Say 3AM?...

STEPHANOPOULOS: What's the most difficult crisis you've had to manage in your public life?

OBAMA: Well, you know, the truth is, in my public life as a legislator, most of the difficult tasks have been to build consensus around hard problems.

And what I think the country needs more than anything right now is somebody who has the capacity to identify areas of common interest, common good, build a consensus around it and get things done.

STEPHANOPOULOS: That is part of the job. There's no question about it.

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you know a big part of the job of a president is what you do in a crisis...

OBAMA: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... the crisis you didn't expect.

OBAMA: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you never really ever had to deal with something like that, right?

OBAMA: Well, what I think is absolutely legitimate is that my political career has been on the legislative side and not in the executive branch.

Now, that's true for a lot of my colleagues, you know, who aren't governors.

And one of the things that I hope over the course of this campaign I show, is the capacity to manage this pretty unwieldy process of a political race. And one of the great things about the press is that they're going to be watching very carefully...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Every move you make.

OBAMA: ... every move you make, and to make sure that people have a sense of how I deal with adversity, how I deal with mistakes, who do I have around me to make sure that we're executing on the things that need to get done.

....


STEPHANOPOULOS: One of your heroes is Abe Lincoln. He was ruthless when he had to be. Can you be ruthless?

OBAMA: You know, I think that somebody who has arrived where I am out of Chicago politics has to have a little bit of steel in him.


I have not made a promise -- and I won't make a promise -- that I'm going to be able to perfectly balance the budget immediately.

What I can say is that we're going to pay as you go; that if I start a new program, I'll find a way to pay for it; if I want tax cuts, then I'm going to find a way to pay for them; and that, over the long term, we get a stable budget that is not simply running up the credit card on our children.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've also said that with Social Security, everything should be on the table.

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising the retirement age?

OBAMA: Everything should be on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Raising payroll taxes?

OBAMA: Everything should be on the table. I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid and Medicare.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Partial privatization?

OBAMA: Privatization is not something that I would consider, and the reason is this: Social Security, I think, is -- that's the floor. That's the baseline. Social Security is that safety net that can't be frayed, and we shouldn't put at risk.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your candidacy brings the issue of race right to the top...

OBAMA: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... of the national conversation. You've been a strong supporter of affirmative action...

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: ... and you're a constitutional law professor, so let's go back in the classroom. I'm your student, I say, "Professor, you and your wife went to Harvard Law School. You've got plenty of money. You're running for president. Why should your daughters, when they go to college, get affirmative action?"

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think that my daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged, and I think that there's nothing wrong with us taking that into account as we consider admissions policies at universities.

I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed.

So I don't think those concepts are mutually exclusive. I think what we can say is that in our society, race and class still intersect, that there are a lot of African-American kids who are still struggling, that even those who are in the middle class may be first generation as opposed to fifth or sixth generation college attendees, and that we all have an interest in bringing as many people together to help build this country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that in 25 years, affirmative action may no longer be necessary. Is she right?

OBAMA: I would like to think that if we make good decisions and we invest in early childhood education, improve K-12, if we have done what needs to be done to ensure that kids who are qualified to go to college can afford it, that affirmative action becomes a diminishing tool for us to achieve racial equality in this society.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have a very cool style when you're doing those town meetings, when you're out on the campaign trail. And I wonder, how much of that is tied to your race?

OBAMA: That's interesting.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One of your friends told the New Yorker Magazine that "the mainstream is just not ready for a fire-breathing black man." Did you turn down the temperature on purpose?

OBAMA: You know, I don't think it has to do with race. I think it has to do with when I'm campaigning, I'm in a conversation. And what I don't do when I'm campaigning is to try to press a lot of hot buttons and use a lot of cheap applause lines, because I want people to get a sense of how I think about this process.

OBAMA: I want them to have some ability to walk through with me the difficult choices that we face.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: We're spending $275 million a day, a day, in Iraq.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: And I think that one of the problems with political speeches is that we all know what folks want to hear. We know who the
conventional, stereotypical enemies are on any given issue, and we have a tendency, I think, to play up to that. And I actually think that we're in this moment in history right now where honesty, admitting complexity is a good thing.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about passion? How about anger? I mean, you've written about how you dealt with issues of anger. Don't you think sometimes voters need to see that too?

OBAMA: Oh, absolutely, and I think they do see it. Listen, the one thing that I don't think people are going to be able to accuse me of is not being able to give a fiery speech. I came onto the national scene after getting folks fired up pretty good.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America. There's the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: But keep in mind, I'm not interested in bringing people together just for the sake of bringing people together. I'm not naive enough to think that if we all hold hands and sing "Kumbaya" that somehow health care gets solved or, you know, education gets solved. Right now, what we need to make significant progress on these problems is to be able to build enough bridges to get things done.

So, I'm furious about the young men that I see standing on corners on the South Side of Chicago without hope, without opportunity, without prospects for the future. I am furious about the mothers I meet here in Iowa who are giving me hugs and telling me about their son who died in a war and asking, did their son die for a mistake? It breaks my heart. But what I know is that the only way we're going to solve the problem is not to assign blame. It's to say, "Here's a vision for the future that we can do something about."

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've had to ask for Secret Service protection awful early in this campaign. Were you reluctant?

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why?

OBAMA: I'm not an entourage guy. You know, up until recently, I was still, you know, taking my wife Michelle's grocery list and going
to the grocery store once in awhile. And so obviously it's constrained, but I'm obviously appreciate of their efforts. They're extraordinarily professional.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Durbin, your friend, who talked to the review board, said a lot of the threats that were coming in are racially motivated. How serious are they? How much are you told? How much do you worry about it?

OBAMA: You know, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about it or considering the details of this. But just to broaden the issue, are there people who would be troubled with an African-American president? Yes. Are there folks who might not vote for me because I'm African-American? No doubt.

What I'm confident about, though, as I travel around the country, is that people are decent at their core in America. The vast majority of folks want to do the right thing.

If I don't win, it's not going to be because of my race. It's going to be because I didn't project a vision of leadership that gave people confidence. It's going to be because of something I didn't do as opposed to because I'm African-American.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've been thinking about running for president a long time. Your brother-in-law says he talked to you about it in the early '90s.

OBAMA: He might have brought it up. I'm not sure.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you dispute that?

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: You know, what's wonderful about this whole process is that everybody has -- everybody looks at me now through the lens of where I am now. You know, I had my high school teacher saying what a wonderful, studious guy he was. And I was goofing off the whole time, and they were calling up the principal. I think there's a lot of self-correction that takes place (inaudible).

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, but there's one more. Valerie Jarrett, a good friend of the family says, you told her in your Senate race, "I just think I have some special qualities, and wouldn't it be a shame to waste them."

OBAMA: That, I think I probably did say.

STEPHANOPOULOS: What are they?

OBAMA: I think that I have the capacity to get people to recognize themselves in each other. I think that I have the ability to make people get beyond some of the divisions that plague our society and to focus on common sense and reason.

OBAMA: And that's been in short supply over the last several years.

You know, I'm not an ideologue. Never have been. Even during my younger days when I was tempted by sort of more radical or left-wing politics, there was a part of me that always was a little bit conservative in that sense, that believes that you make progress by sitting down, listening to people, recognizing everybody's concerns, seeing other people's points of views, and them making decisions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: One final question. Everyone is going to be watching this on Mother's Day, and a lot of America is going to get to know a lot about you over the next year, but they're never going to know your mom. She passed away a little more than 10 years ago. What's the most important lesson she taught you?

OBAMA: She was the sweetest soul I've ever known, and I think that quality that I just talked about, the capacity to see the world through somebody else's eyes or to stand in their shoes, is what she gave to me in great abundance. And I think that capacity is what's needed right now in this moment.

There have been other moments in history where maybe some other skills were needed, but I think bringing the country together -- and, by the way, bringing the world together -- so that there's that sense of mutual recognition is something that I get directly from my mother. And I think her spirit acts powerfully on me throughout the course of this campaign.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, thanks very much.

OBAMA: Thank you so much, George. I appreciate it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The roundtable is next with George Will, Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson. And later, Brooke Shields.


Transcript exerpts from - Lynn Sweet, Chicago Sun-Times. The scoop from Washington May 31, 2007


George Stephanopoulos: "You have a very cool style . . . How much of that is tied to your race?"

... and Hillary is a PC. The NYT had an article about this back before Super Tuesday. It was a bit whimsical, but there is something to it.

For PC, one might also substitute 'Windows' or 'Microsoft', and instead of Mac we could use 'OS X' or 'Apple' without breaking the analogy.

Hillary is the established product, "no one got fired for choosing Microsoft". But like Microsoft, Hillary is no longer the hungry upstart, she is the wealthy behemoth whose number one asset is its brand name. And the times they are a-changin'. Like Microsoft, Hillary is stuck in the nineties.

Obama on the other hand is like Apple, not afraid to - dare I say it - Think Different. Like Apple, Obama appeals to the latte-sipping, Prius-driving liberal elitists - in other words, the well educated, professional, successful crowd. Obama is doing the unthinkable, taking on the Goliath by putting together a better strategy and a better product. People who try Obama don't want to go back to Hillary anymore because Obama is just so much more modern, slicker, powerful, sexier and better. Obama is the wave of the future.

The PC is the reliable, hard working computer with solutions for everything and 35 years of experience... yet people go for the Mac because it offers a better way to get things done. Windows is the system that knows better than its users (Vista UAC, anyone?) while Mac simply offers superior design and clean break from old baggage from the last century.

Here's hoping that the Windows establishment won't be able to cling to power and will be overtaken by the sleek felines (Leopard, Tiger et al.). Out with the old, in with the new!

Enough torturing metaphors. If you're a Mac-loving elitist, please recommend this post. But if you're not, you can recommend it too - big tent and all.

Hillary Clinton learned 'hard lesson' on health care, she wrote to Moynihan

BY DAVID SALTONSTALL
DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

Wednesday, April 16th 2008, 4:00 AM

Hillary Clinton campaigns at the Newspaper Association of America convention in Washington Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton has long admitted to bungling universal health care in 1994, but a never-before-seen note she penned to the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan reveals how deeply she thought the failure hurt her — and the nation.

"If I had listened to you about health care in 1994, I would be far better off today - but more importantly - so would the nation's health care system," Clinton wrote Moynihan in October 2000, near the end of her New York Senate campaign to succeed the retiring Moynihan.

It was a confession in which the former First Lady seemed to acknowledge that - if not for her refusal to listen to congressional leaders in her own party like Moynihan - millions more Americans would likely have become insured.

"All I can tell you is I learned my lessons the hard way, which makes them indelible," Clinton said in the handwritten note, a copy of which was obtained by the Daily News.

Accepting blame for the 1994 health care debacle is nothing new for Clinton, especially lately, as she is again promising to provide health insurance to all Americans as a candidate for President.

"If you don't learn from your mistakes, you stop growing," the presidential hopeful said last September as she unveiled her new health care plan, which she has promised would be debated more openly than the closed-door process she oversaw as First Lady in 1993 and 1994.

But her private note to Moynihan seemed to cast her failure, and its cost to the nation, in starker terms.

Back in 1994, Moynihan was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and brokered a bipartisan bill that would have cut the number of uninsured Americans in half - to roughly 20 million from 40 million.

But the Clintons refused to consider anything but 100% coverage, killing any chance of a compromise, said David Podoff, a former Senate Finance Committee economist who was intimately involved in negotiations.

"It was an opportunity lost," said Podoff, now an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

Since then, the problem has only gotten worse, with some 46 million Americans uninsured, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Despite their rift, Moynihan backed Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign. However, the senator's widow, Liz, is now backing Clinton rival Barack Obama for President.

Clinton now argues her current health care plan is superior to one offered by Obama because it would be a surer path to universal coverage.

Hillary Clinton learned 'hard lesson' on health care, she wrote to Moynihan

BY DAVID SALTONSTALL
DAILY NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT

Wednesday, April 16th 2008, 4:00 AM

Dharapak/AP

Hillary Clinton campaigns at the Newspaper Association of America convention in Washington Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton has long admitted to bungling universal health care in 1994, but a never-before-seen note she penned to the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan reveals how deeply she thought the failure hurt her — and the nation.

"If I had listened to you about health care in 1994, I would be far better off today - but more importantly - so would the nation's health care system," Clinton wrote Moynihan in October 2000, near the end of her New York Senate campaign to succeed the retiring Moynihan.

It was a confession in which the former First Lady seemed to acknowledge that - if not for her refusal to listen to congressional leaders in her own party like Moynihan - millions more Americans would likely have become insured.

"All I can tell you is I learned my lessons the hard way, which makes them indelible," Clinton said in the handwritten note, a copy of which was obtained by the Daily News.

Accepting blame for the 1994 health care debacle is nothing new for Clinton, especially lately, as she is again promising to provide health insurance to all Americans as a candidate for President.

"If you don't learn from your mistakes, you stop growing," the presidential hopeful said last September as she unveiled her new health care plan, which she has promised would be debated more openly than the closed-door process she oversaw as First Lady in 1993 and 1994.

But her private note to Moynihan seemed to cast her failure, and its cost to the nation, in starker terms.

Back in 1994, Moynihan was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and brokered a bipartisan bill that would have cut the number of uninsured Americans in half - to roughly 20 million from 40 million.

But the Clintons refused to consider anything but 100% coverage, killing any chance of a compromise, said David Podoff, a former Senate Finance Committee economist who was intimately involved in negotiations.

"It was an opportunity lost," said Podoff, now an adjunct professor at Georgetown University.

Since then, the problem has only gotten worse, with some 46 million Americans uninsured, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Despite their rift, Moynihan backed Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign. However, the senator's widow, Liz, is now backing Clinton rival Barack Obama for President.

Clinton now argues her current health care plan is superior to one offered by Obama because it would be a surer path to universal coverage.

I've heard several people say they're afraid that even after June 3rd, Clinton will stay in and continue to campaign negatively. I'll grant that she might stay in, but it will no longer make sense for her to continue her negative campaigning (although some could argue that's already true). By that point, the only people's minds left to change are the unpledged delegates and possibly (but much less likely) the pledged delegates. It's neither fiscally nor politically wise for her to run a negative campaign, at least not out in the open. So, no matter what happens, I predict the worst of the intraparty fighting will be over June 3rd.

For Clinton supporters who might take issue with some of my assumptions above, feel free to replace the word <em>Clinton</em> with <em>Obama</em> where you find it appropriate.

Call it a fixation, but everywhere I look, I am seeing Tom Buffenbarger, head of the machinists union and ham-handed Hillary supporter.

In early February, Buffenbarger made an ass of himself, effectively calling voters from Coeur D'Alene, Savannah, and East St. Louis, "latte-sipping, birkenstock-wearing, Prius-driving elitists."  In late February, he was at it again, making hay out of the Goolsbee silliness, and asserting that Hillary is the only one you can trust to be consistent and honest on NAFTA.

Now, as jdw112 has been good enough to note, Buffenbarger's aide Rick Sloan has been circulating a tip sheet for Republicans regarding Ayers and Obama that would even make Lee Atwater blush. 

Thanks to his buffoonish and divisive antics, Tom Buffenbarger may have done more than any other single HRC supporter (aside from Bill and Hillary herself), to harm the Demcrats' chances in November.

Also, he has a hilarious and irresistible name. 

Therefore, I would like to try and revive my earlier campaign to start using his name as a verb (much as Dan savage noun-ified "Santorum").  Here goes.

Buffenbarger (BUH-fen-bar'gr) verb:
1. When one Democrat tries to slime another with the label "elitist," or otherwise employ pseudo-populist divide-and-distract wedge issue  Republican politics. 
2. To engage in desperate pre-election name calling.
"I will not be Buffenbargered by someone who just came back from spending two weeks in the Hamptons."

No longer the province of one or two nutty surrogates, Bufferbargering has become official HRC campaign strategy. Now that the 109 Million Dollar Woman is trying to tag Obama with the label "elitist," it's time to take a stand and fight back against Bufferbargering!  As a wise man once said, "This aggression will not stand, dude."

To speak out against Buffenbargering in all its nefarious forms, consider hitting "recommend." (shameless.)  And please feel free to add your own examples of Buffenbargering that you've witnessed this silly-season.

Obama supporters: don't get overconfident.  Hillary still has a chance to turn this thing around.  This video shows how:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg

On May 3, voters in Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District can help America awaken from eight nightmarish years of Republican lunacy posing as leadership.  Down here in the parishes along the Mississippi River near Baton Rouge, Democrat Don Cazayoux is in a runoff against ultra-rightwing Republican Woody Jenkins, a quintessential George W. Bush clone, for a seat that has been held by Republican Richard Baker for 21 years (1987-2008).

Don and his wife of 21 years, Cherie, are great people.  My wife, Mary Lou Kelley, and I have known Don since he was a grad student in Psychology at LSU where Mary Lou is a professor.  After earning a Masters degree, Don enrolled in Georgetown University Law School.  Upon graduation, he joined a law firm in Baton Rouge and later became a prosecutor in his hometown of New Roads, LA (Pointe Coupee Parish).  He was elected to the state House of Representatives in 1999.  Don has established himself as a strong advocate for children with a signature issue being protection from Internet sexual predators.  Because of his outstanding personal qualities, moderate politics, his background in criminal prosecution, and his strong advocacy for children and families, Don is a very strong candidate in a diverse but right-leaning district.  His election to Congress would be a great victory for the Democratic Party and would help the next President, whether it’s Barack Obama or  Hillary Clinton, build on the Democratic majority in Congress. 

To give you an idea of the importance of this race, twice last night on local television I saw an attack ad against Don from Freedom’s Watch, a neocon 501c4 lobbying group whose core issue is supporting the disastrous US invasion and occupation of Iraq.  It is widely argued that Freedom's Watch has the  ultimate goal of a US invasion of Iran!  Evidence quickly surfaced suggesting that this ad was illegally coordinated by the NRCC,

All Democrats and progressive independents in a position to help Don Cazayoux win this runoff should do so.  As a supporter of Barack Obama, I believe it would give a strong boost to Sen. Obama if those of us in the Louisiana Obama network work to mobilize our friends to get out and vote for Don Cazayoux on May 3. However, supporters of Sen. Clinton have the same opportunity to help their candidate now and in the event that she wins the Presidency.  This is a great opportunity for all of us to work toward a common goal of the greatest import.  I would also like to mention that the Cazayoux campaign is looking for college students to be paid part-time campaign workers. This could be a good opportunity for some of you. You may email Don's campaign through his web portal (see above).  Feel free to contact me to discuss ways to coordinate our efforts.

All the best,

Owen

   What could be more drearily predictable, days before yet another primary, than the sight of Hillary morphing from Lady Macbeth into Alice in Wonderland.
   You could see the change coming at the so-called debate, where she was in familiar, vicious mode while sporting a make-up job in softening shades of pink and white, like the human equivalent of an Easter mint.
   "Knock on doors," she instructed a group of college students yesterday, while grinning her best charm-offensive grin, "and say, 'you know, she's really nice'. Or you could say it another way and say, 'She's not as bad as you think she is'."
   Actually, she's a lot worse than you think she is, but then, we're accustomed to Clinton lying.
   So accustomed that you've got to figure that Carl Bernstein nailed it when positing that a Hillary presidency, like her husband's, would be known for some good policy ideas offset by endless drama and dissembling.
   But truly scarey, as opposed to merely obscene, are the growing hints that hers would be an imperial presidency or, to put it in Hillary's terms, a wallow in "screw 'em" politics.
    For evidence, start with the punitive way her campaign deals with offending members of the MSM. Then consider her recent committment to expand "the American Security Umbrella" to cover Saudi Arabia and and to apply maximum force against the Iranian's if they attack the Saudi's or any of our Arab allies. Or to put it another way, she's bound and determined to defend any nation whose leaders contributed to the Clinton Library.
    But for now, Warrior Hillary has been retired in favor of Hillary-and-her-Mom and a self-deprecating, ostensibly humanized Hillary soon to be viewed chatting with Larry King. All this kinder, gentler stuff  is kind of creepy in light of what preceeded it: the ginned-up outrage, her stints as Bar Drinker and Annie Oakley.
    None of this will matter of course if she loses on Tuesday. But she'll probably win. And when she does, we better start talking about the ways in which a Hillary presidency would further decimate an already battered Constitution.

I think you are dead wrong about Lieberman, his take on the war is in line with many Democrats. With his stand up attitude, our candidates need to take note, because when the campaign begins in earnest, we can't go on with the wimpy ways exibited in the primary.
The Democrats need Joe.

Two interesting articles in tomorrow's NY Times:

Facing Obama Fund-Raising Juggernaut, Clinton Seeks New Sources of Cash
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/politics/20donor.html
"her big-dollar fund-raising apparatus that was once the envy of the political world is encountering obstacles as many of those in its regular networks of donors have reached the maximum on their personal contributions or grown tired of the relentless press for donations."


For Clintons, a Time to Find Truest Friends
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/politics/20loyalty.html

“It was just heartbreaking,” said Mrs. Larson, a Democratic National Committee member from Minnesota and more to the point, a superdelegate who had initially pledged herself to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. This was last Saturday, after the former first daughter learned that Mrs. Larson would be shifting her allegiance to Senator Barack Obama.

“She is a delightful young woman who loves her mother very much,” Mrs. Larson said. “She was really pushing me. She kept asking me why I was doing this. She just kept asking, ‘Why? Why?’ ”

c/o Brave New Films:

http://tinyurl.com/5oshwm

It is almost unsporting to consider Hillary Clinton's campaign arguments on their merits at this point.  Any concern about how her plaint du jour might play out for her own campaign -- let alone for her party – now has no place in her calculus.  There is no long term; only a desperate efforts to survive another week. 

But her effort to score a few points (at least with especially unobservant voters) by criticizing Obama as thin-skinned for striking back against the insipid and Limbaugh-ite tone of ABC's recent debate stands out, even for Hillary, for the degree to which it clashes with the interests of the Democratic Party and progressive policy objectives.  

 If anyone should be, and if actually is, aware of the perils of a national political media driven in equal measure by a desire for cheap entertainment  and right-wing propaganda, it is Hillary Clinton.  But set aside for a moment the irony of such a criticism coming from Hillary, who has herself frequently complained in  this very  campaign (often with very good reason) about the media's treatment of herself and  her family , and who maintains a deep distrust of the media’s role in the many, generally manufactured, scandals of the 1990s.  Set aside the fact that most fair-minded observers – including hardcore Hillary-ites like Ed Rendell – noted ABC’s abysmal performance.   Think for a moment about the idiocy of the Clinton campaign’s suggestion that a Democratic candidate should not strike back when a supposedly respectable  press outlet ventriloquizes Sean Hannity and behaves like the unholy spawn of Roger Ailes and Matt Drudge.  (Clinton herself, of course, prides herself on being tough and hitting back:   a “Press can Do No Wrong” rule she advocates for Obama violates the Clinton’s own rapid response principle – though we now see that the ultimate Clinton rule of politics is that rules do not  constrain the Clintons).

The notion that a Democratic candidate should just accept the media as it is, on pain of being dubbed unpresidential and a “whiner,” is sheer political poison for Democrats.   Most readers of this site will demand no proof that the media in this country is a very major part of what is wrong with our politics.   The trivialization of politics; the unexpurgated funneling of right-wing slurs; the inability or unwillingness to address complex economic or scientific issues; and the lack of meaningful wall between the interests of the corporate owners and the journalists they employ.   And the media bear a very great responsibility for some of the worst disasters of recent decades, including the election (sort of) and reelection of a consummately, almost freakishly unfit person to the Presidency; the propagation of global warming skepticism in the name of balance; and the selling of a disastrous and probably illegal war waged for phantom causes. 

As long as the media are constituted as they now are, progressive causes and ordinary citizens will systematically lose.  Criticizing the media; punishing the worst outlets by refusing bookings, and calling for new and better modes of communication are every bit as important to progressive causes as winning particular elections.   Obama was, of course, right to trash ABC for pushing trivial, manufactured issues at the expense of real ones.   If he is going to bring about real change in our politics, he will need to go further.  

Trashing the shallowness of the media can also be good politics.   There is a huge, only occasionally tapped reservoir of contempt for the media out there in the public – not just among “netroots” types with their reflexive jibes at the “MSM,” but among the great liberal and middle of the road masses of Americans.    Many people sense how lazy our news coverage has become, and respond with relief at the more sincere (and infinitely more entertaining) and often even more informative, humor news of Stewart and Colbert.   (Conservatives, of course, are well ahead in disciplining the news media – witness their success in creating an nearly unanimous drumbeat for the Iraq war, and, more recently, the boisterous response to the New York Times’ story on John McCain’s extremely sketchy relationship with lobbyist Vicki Iseman).

In suggesting that Obama was wrong – or wimpy – for criticizing (albeit quite mildly) the content-free nature of the ABC debate, Clinton was once again, playing right along with the worst right-wing script.  (Previously, of course, Fox News has questioned Obama’s fitness to face down foreign tyrants if he refuses to go on Fox News).   But she has it exactly wrong:   refusing to play by the absurd rules of our traditional media, and insistence on a new way of communicating about politics, will necessarily be a central part of Obama’s reformist movement, if it is to be successful.

Attacking the media, obviously, is not a good in itself.   It is often a tool of tyrants and totalitarians.  But our national media has become dysfunctional enough that pretending that it is neutral, thorough, and fair – in the name of avoiding accusation of shrillness or demagoguery – will no longer do.   Thoughtful criticism of the press from the mini-bully pulpit of the candidate rostrum is every bit as important as is thoughtful criticism of our other leading institutions.   And Obama seems well suited to advance arguments about the often pathetic way in which our politics and policy are covered in this country in a manner that does not seem like special pleading.  

The crowd at the Philly rally was the biggest one for Obama yet at around 35,000-most importantly he did it without Oprah.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/obama-draws-record-crowd-in-philadelphia/

Also there ws a bit of an 'after party'!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYUkyvpA_a8

Good thing that crowd didn't have torches & pitchforks! I thought they sounded pretty rowdy at the rally, the video illustates it. I do wish they had one stop voting, we might have seen them march right out and vote.

http://www.talkleft.com/


For you trolls (Weaver, gotalife, etc.) this is more of a pro Hillary site in terms of news stories and comments.

The Hillary fan support there is nearly equals the Obama fan support here.

As reported by Marc Ambinder:

"At a high school here, she led the crowd, mostly students and in their parents, in a chorus of "Yes we can!"s."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/

The Obama new kind of politics is the gop kind of politics. I have noticed a very disturbing trend on the Obama biased "progressive" media. After "bittergate" and "whinergate" they are desperately trying to smear the Clintons with recycled old news from the Huffinton Post er Obama Post.

Keep in mind, the owner of that blog was a neocon and her first web site was calling for the resignation of President Clinton. Markos of Daily Kos er Obama was gop and they are both making money claiming to be "progressives" but their attacks on the Clintons are gop like and helping the gop.

Their baseless accusations should be debated with facts, proof and solid evidence to back up their accusations. When I try to ask questions, the moderators will not post them. Of course, if you support Clinton at Daily Obama you will get banned.

This new kind of politics is the old kind of gop politics using their media to spread baseless lies with no proof. I thought we were better than the gop but I guess this new kind of politics proved me wrong.

I call on Dems to speak out against this tabloid journalism. It is dividing the Dem party and helping the gop. I am starting to think the owners of these blogs have that goal.

United we stand, divided we fall and "progressives" are the ones dividing the party not the Clintons.

The Final Democratic Debate leaves one rather curious about Motivation. What kind of bizarre uncurrents collected that night, to bring about such a Perfect Storm of inanity?

On some level, I’m sure Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos knew that since this was debate number eight-hundred and fifty, there was really very little left to discuss. What policy area had not already been covered, other than the nonsense?

It’s also conceivable that they had some kind of bet going with the other networks—Charlie Gibson at his weekly card game with Russert, Hannity, O’Reilly—

Gibson going, “I bet you we’ll have the worst debate of all—what if we talked about American Flags and Patriotism for ten minutes?”

And Russert says “You’re bluffing, you don’t have the balls.”

And Gibson just says “Try me.”

OR, maybe it was even more sinister than that! Charlie can’t possibly believe that most Americans are in HIS tax bracket, can he? Maybe the guy is planning, you know, a Lake-Michigan-Sized hot tub in his back yard in 2009, and he just couldn’t help himself with the Cap Gains soliloquy.

You know, I thought Stephanopoulos was one of our guys. What happened? Now he’s taking notes from Hannity, and he gets that amorous look in his eye whenever he says “George W. Bush”— 

I’m not ruling out the possibility that after his radio show on Wednesday Hannity murdered Stephanopoulos and wore his skin to the debate, but I wonder how he’s kept it from decomposing so far? I’m sure there are ways, and I’m sure Hannity knows about them.

It’s either that, or saddest of all, they’ve completely submitted to the Family Values 527 group that certainly has an office in one of ABC’s buildings—possibly Epcot—ABC FAMILY after all, being little more than the Young Republicans Channel. If that’s the case, Charlie Gibson ought to be wrapped in an American Flag and stuck with fifty label pins and set ablaze like a Monk next time Disney World has an anniversary.

Meanwhile, one gets the distinct impression that Hillary Clinton is somehow plotting a third-party bid—some kind of “Democratic Republicans” party—Ed Rendell can be the party chair, sending Clinton the nails with which to hand her grievances on the Democratic Party Door—some bizarre manifesto for Gun Toting, Values-voting, well, Republicans except-for-in-name. Clinton is pulling a Reagan, making the new Left what was once the center, and Richard Nixon gets more Liberal every day. 

For the Debate over Obama’s “bitter” remarks had a sinister undercurrent—the insinuation that your President should not be Smarter than You. The American Dream has a new lie: ANYONE can be President.

It’s important to be a good bowler, own guns, and never have any policy toward Muslims other than Bombing them.

First Obama was Too Black, then Not Black Enough, then Too Experienced, and now he’s Too Smart?

What will really be amazing is if voters in PA Buy Clinton’s “Rocky” story. She’s THE GREAT WHITE HOPE, not some amateur pugilist throwing punches in whatever available direction.

How fitting that all of this should take place in the Racial DMZ of Pennsylvania. 

Don’t let the inanity of the debate deceive you. This IS about Race, Power, and once again about Zen-Like ignorance and the Lie of the American Dream Reborn. The Parasite has found a new host—not the grouchy, Jimmy-Carter-esque scold that McCain is sure to become, but The “My Daddy Taught Me How to Shoot” Senator from New York. Even though the Working People have nothing to lose but their chains, they are being quickly persuaded otherwise.

Because where some see chains, others see a culture at stake—a violent, ignorant, arrogantly religious Way of Life that somehow deserves protection. HRC is the new Dubya, having anointed herself Pennsylvania’s personal vessel for denial.

Meanwhile the Pope two days ago praised the American Virtue of HOPE. Is an Obama endorsement on the way? Keep an eye out for that one.

About the only thing that puts a smile on George Bush’s face these days is the performance of his Supreme Court.

Once a co-equal branch of our federal government, the Supreme Court is now Bush’s personal toy. The Justice Department, which has a way of going after Democrats and liberal causes, serves up cases on a platter and the Supreme Court gladly puts their ultra-conservative stamp on them (disregarding such inconvenient standards as constitutionality or precedent).

The love affair between Bush and the Supreme Court began in the aftermath of the 2000 election, when the court ignored all precedent and handed Bush the presidency.

Yesterday, the Bush Supreme Court was at it again.

This time they gave the thumbs up to lethal injections as a form of execution.

Led by Chief Justice John Roberts, and opposed only by Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, the court ruled that the three-step method of murder: sedate, paralyze and kill was an appropriate procedure even though there was substantial evidence that the sedate part of the formula wasn’t always successful.

George Bush, the man who broke the modern day record for executions during his tenure as governor of Texas, must have thrilled with the work of his henchmen on the court.

As Governor, Bush presided over 152 executions, by far the most in the modern era. For some reason, the only death warrant he refused to sign was that of mass murderer Henry Lee Lucas. Lucas had confessed to over 3,000 murders, but it is believed that he only killed about 350.

The great irony is that the decision came down on the eve of the Pope’s visit. Bush fawned over the Pope as a man of God and peace. The Pope is on  record as being against our presence in Iraq and against the death penalty.

Of course, the Pope is not alone in his opposition to the death penalty. Virtually the entire world has banned it. There is no death penalty in Europe, Canada, Mexico, Australia. If you want to see kind of company we keep, look at the top six nations for executions in 2007: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, the United States and Iraq.

I guess that makes us a proud member of the Axes of Evil.
www.blogezine.com

Nobody likes paying taxes.

I know I’m not going to get much of an argument on that one.

But paying taxes that fund a George Bush budget… it’s just too painful for words.

The same week I sent in my 1040 I had a chance to read a report from The National Priorities Project called: Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go?

This may be the most depressing thing I’ve read since The Bell Jar.

According to the report, here’s how each tax dollar is spent:

* A Staggering 42.2 cents (nearly half) went to the military.

          -Of that only 3.5 cents went to veterans.

          - Of that, 10 cents (ten percent of your tax dollars) went to paying off the debt we’ve incurred just on military spending

* Twenty-two cents went to health care

* 10.2 cents went to the non-military debt (remember the days of the Clinton surplus? Seems so long ago)

* Anti-poverty programs got 8.7 cents

* Education received just 4.4 cents

* Government and law enforcement received 3.9 cents

* Housing and Community Development got 3.3 cents

* Environment, energy and science garnered 2.4 cents

* Agriculture, commerce and transportation received 1.5 cents

* International affairs 1 cent

If this isn’t an indictment of the Bush presidency (and the ineffectual Congress), what is?

Think about it. Our combined spending on science, education, housing, transportation and agriculture is less than one fourth of what we spend on the military.

As we spread the George Bush version of democracy to Iraq, our democratic institutions at home are threatened by our failure to provide basic needs to our citizens. As Bush keeps fighting for a better tomorrow in Iraq, our American tomorrows are looking bleaker and bleaker.

Take a long, hard look at the headline to this story.

If it doesn’t sound familiar, it should.

This was the title of the speech George W. Bush delivered on October 7, 2002. It was the speech Bush made outlining our reasons for going to war with Iraq.

The profound irony of this title will be seen in the excerpts that follow:

* (Iraq) possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons.

* (Iraq) is seeking nuclear weapons.

*  The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.

* Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.

* Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.

* If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

* (Iraq) is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons.

* We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.

* We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

* Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

* Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue.

* Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

* Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

* Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

* [K]nowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

* I hope this will not require military action, but it may.

Four months later, our Shock and Awe campaign began. Five years later, the war continues with no end in sight.

So much for Denial and Deception.

See the full transcript of the speech.
www.blogezine.com

The war in Iraq is a debacle.

We have turned Iraq into an incubator for terrorists.

We have emboldened Iran.

To many, it looks like a war we can’t win.

Sure sounds like the rantings of a liberal pundit or a Democratic Party candidate, doesn’t it?

Only these are the views of the National Defense University- a research branch of the Department of Defense. These are the words of Jim Collins, a senior Pentagon official and key advisor to Donsald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.

This week, the National Defense University released its report, Choosing War: The Decision to Invade Iraq and its Aftermath. Authored by Collins, it goes into great detail about the series of blunders that led us into the war, the miserable execution of the war, and the dismal prospects for a successful end to the war.

The first line of the report sums things up pretty well:

”Measured in blood and treasure, the war in Iraq has achieved the status of a major war and a major debacle.”

Here are some of the more damning findings of the report:

* ”[O]ur efforts [in Iraq] were designed to enhance U.S. national security, but they have become, at least temporarily, an incubator for terrorism and have emboldened Iran to expand its influence throughout the Middle East.”

* “[T]he war in Iraq and its aftermath have exposed a flawed decision-making process and weak decision execution mechanisms. In planning and executing operations in Iraq, basic organizations, organizational cultures, operational procedures and legislative support systems have all been found wanting and in need of fundamental reform.”

Collins finished his 60-page report with a wonderful and pertinent quote from Winston Churchill:

“Let us learn our lessons. Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The Statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations—all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war. Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think that he also had a chance.”

It is good to know there are still some honest, brave and dedicated people in senior positions in the military. There always have been and there always will be.

What is so sad is that the voices of honesty and dignity have long been ignored by the likes of George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.

When dealing with war and human life, not to listen to reason is tantamount to treason.

Read the full report HERE

www.blogezine.com

I am a great believer in the democratic process, but am quick losing my faith with the Democratic Party.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not about to jump into the McCain camp, nor am I going to be one of those disenchanted Democrats who will just choose not to vote.

No matter who wins the nomination, I am going to wholeheartedly support their candidacy. This election means way too much. A McCain presidency would:

* Imbalance the Supreme Court for the next 40 years

* Leave us in Iraq for the next 50 years

* Put our country into the kind of deficit that would take 25 years to recover from

That’s a whole lot of impact from a four-year term.

That’s why I feel so strongly that the only way to defeat McCain is to start engaging him in battle immediately.

So long as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama clash on a daily basis, both candidates suffer and McCain is the beneficiary.

That’s why I’m hoping and praying that Hillary drops out of the race following Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary. Though Hillary is likely to win in Pennsylvania, the margin will be so small as to not make any significant change in Obama’s delegate lead.

By withdrawing from the race on Wednesday (or even Tuesday night), Hillary can re-establish herself as a major figure in the Democratic Party and undo much of the damage this campaign has done to her political reputation. By taking the high road and making the right choice, Hillary can become part of the solution and not be the heart of the problem.

Sadly, this isn’t about to happen. Hillary is in this until the bitter end and the end will be bitter indeed.

Hillary’s vicious and unfounded attacks on Obama have done little to help her csampaign, but has provided fodder for the McCain campaign. This week, she turned her ire to Moveon.org. Moveone.org has done more to help the Democratic Party’s chances in 2008 than any other single organization.

It had done a brilliant job of mobilizing previously disaffected voters and has gotten them involved in the democratic process.

Until recently, Hillary was a big fan of Moveon.org:

“You’ve been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves… I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better… both online, and in the corridors of power.”

After Moveon.org endorsed Obama, her tune changed. The great grassroots revolution Hillary so admired, doesn’t please her so much when that revolution has chosen Obama as its leader:

“[T]hey are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.”

Organizations like Moveon.org are the salvation of the Democratic Party and of democracy in general. Bush won the last two elections because young people didn’t vote. Moveon.org has given that generation a sense of belonging to the political process. It has convinced young people that they can really make a difference.

The one thing it hasn’t been able to do is convince Hillary that the time has come to move on.
www.blogezine.com

In 2 separate speeches, Obama made the finger gesture the moment he said Hillary Clinton's name. One audience laughed hysterically, another was a little slower. Here is the Youtube of one speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNO58WdUptU Here us the ABC mov of another speech ABC news http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4675790&affil=wtae

Critics of Moveon very often point out that the group opposed invading Afghanistan after 9/11.  Then we all argue about what Moveon did or didn't say at the time and the argument is rarely productive because it rests on a false premise: that we were absolutely right to invade Afghanistan and that any other point of view is bogus.

I'm not a Moveon member (they send too many emails) and I did support attacking Afghanistan.  But, we need to stop thinking about it as some sort of good war that all reasonable people did and do support.

Here are some valid reasons that somebody might have opposed invading Afghanistan:

Afghanistan didn't attack us, Al-Qaeda did.  Sure, the Taliban supported Al-Qaeda but we supported the Taliban up until September 10th so we lacked any sort of moral high ground.

9/11 was basically a criminal act, not a military act, so our response should have been closer to an international law enforcement effort.

That the chaos of war might have created cover that would allow Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants to escape justice.

We risked killing innocent people in Afghanistan by invading.

We did not have the ability to replace the Taliban with an effective government.

We risked sending our troops into a quagmire that would lead to a multi-year engagement.

That our occupation in Afghanistan risked propping up Musharaf's dictatorship in Pakistan and could potentially harm our relations with India while hurting our efforts to stop states from developing nuclear weapons.

In the end, I believed that once the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden that it had to go.  But I don't think that people who might have opposed invading Afghanistan (or who still oppose it, or the way the war was conducted) are particularly radical or wrong-headed.

Hillary went full bore trying to turn Obama's mangling of the bitter comments into a winning strategy. Of course, the media decided that it was in their best interest to follow her lead. So we've had a week of Hillary and the pundits telling us how offended small town Pennsylvanians would be to Obama's supposedly condescendings bitter statement. The following are a couple of observations and comments from different media sources. The first is from Zogby; it puts into perpective Obama's statements, Hillary's reaction and a little on ZOgby's miss in Ohio.

Interview with Zogby - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - By Bill Steigerwald

Q: What fooled you about Ohio's primary? Your last poll had that as a tie as well, yet Clinton ended up winning by 10 percentage points.

A: There were some pollsters who did it better than I did. But I was a little too late catching the break. It was the last break of white voters, voting in substantial numbers, and voting against Obama if not for Hillary, for reasons of trade -- remember there were some questions about Obama's commitment to the opposition to trade -- and some of it clearly was race, and that's what the exit polls said.
...
Q: What has been happening to cut down Clinton's double-digit lead?

A: Generally speaking, it's negative campaigning. That's the broad stroke. There's plenty of evidence throughout the year that negative campaigning just isn't working anymore -- that in fact it backfires. That's broadly. Specifically, it doesn't work for Sen. Clinton. So it may be one thing to do damage to the opponent, or to have the opponent inflict wounds upon himself, but that doesn't make her more likable.

Q: Did Obama's comments about the "bitter voters" of the small towns of Pennsylvania end up hurting him significantly?

A: It's counterintuitive. It certainly hurt him among the punditry and hurt him deeply among Republicans. That's for sure. But in our poll we asked the following statement: "Recently in a speech before business leaders in California, Barack Obama said that many residents of small-town Pennsylvania are bitter about their economic circumstances and because of that they 'cling to guns and religion.' Critics of Obama say he is an elitist and does not understand working people and what they go through, while supporters say he is the only candidate telling the truth about how hard hit the middle class is because of economic policies of those in Washington, D.C." Then we asked, "Who are you more likely to agree with? The critics of Obama? Or supporters who say Obama is telling the truth and people are bitter?" Twenty-nine percent said they agree with critics of Obama and 60 percent said they agreed with supporters of Obama.

Q: So obviously, "bitter voters" didn't hurt him.

A: It did not hurt him. ... Catholics agreed with supporters of Obama, 56-32; whites, 55-33; it's across the board. We went over the question enough times. I think we worded the question fairly. I don't see anything. It doesn't seem to have hurt yet, anyway.

From a poll taken of North Carolina by Elon University.

But Elon polling director Hunter Bacot said that Obama's remarks factored very little into the voting and that more voters focused on his response to the remarks of his pastor.

"I don't think the bitter remark is resonating here at all," Bacot said.

The Washington Post.

Yes, the Jeanmenne brothers concede, they are somewhat "bitter," the word that Sen. Barack Obama used at a San Francisco fundraiser to describe small-town Pennsylvania, in a riff that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton seized on to cast him as elitist. The steel mill where Michael worked as a stenciler is slated to shut down this year; the GM parts manufacturer where Bob worked is also on its last legs. All eight of their children have left town. "There's an awful lot of resentment around here," said Bob Jeanmenne, 84.

And no, they do not agree with the rest of Obama's analysis: that voters in distressed towns "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment as a way to explain their frustration."

Yet they find it hard to get worked up about the comments -- as do other Pennsylvanians, judging by polls that so far show little damage from an episode Clinton has worked hard to exploit. Years of watching the decline of the town they have lived in since their family arrived from France in the 1920s has, they suggested, provided perspective that keeps them from getting caught up in 24-hour cable and Internet outrage.
...
"He overstepped his statement, and didn't realize what he was saying. It was a Freudian slip -- he said what's in his mind," said Bob Jeanmenne. "But I don't think it will make much difference."

Finally, Bill Maher had Jeremy Scahill, the author who exposed Blackwater, present a video segment showing interviews with white rural Pennsylvanians in the Allentown and Norristown areas. Most of the people he interviewed said they were voting for Obama. One mentioned that he knew Obama apologized, but he didn't think he had to because what he said was true. Another man said that if you read the whole text and read between the lines, what Obama said is true.

    Here is a multipart question that should send chills down the spine of almost everyone in the Democratic Party establishment, including most importantly, superdelegates, uncommitted or otherwise. Assuming Hillary Clinton manages to get nominated without destroying party unity and does somehow reach the White House, who in their right mind would want to be on her staff or in her cabinet?
    With Bill Clinton having happily settled into the roles of cartoon character and loose cannon, why would his behavior and visibility be any different with Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office? Does anyone believe he would passively accept the traditional wallpaper role of first mate? Does anyone believe he would not insert himself aggressively—and visibly—into policy debates of all kinds?
    Who would want to be Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff? Or National Security Advisor? Or Domestic Policy Advisor? Or Treasury Secretary? Or Secretary of State or Defense?
    What about Press Secretary? The Clintons hate the press and much of the press corps hates them in return—for good reason. The Clintons are combative and secretive and lie a lot. What a great way for a press secretary to start. No thanks.
    Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be an inept manager. The only two large enterprises she’s ever run, the health care debacle of the early ‘90s and now her campaign, have been massive screwups from start to finish. Then there’s all the drama and the cast of characters the Clintons seem to attract: Lewinsky, Mark Penn, Vince Foster, Web Hubbell, at al. Who needs that? Who would want to be a part of it?
    A wise and effective leader surrounds herself with good people. Look at Hillary’s track record so far. Imagine the number of cabinet and staff candidates not returning phone calls to the transition team.
    Hillary Clinton in the White House. Just imagine.

Since Hillary supporters continue to push this nonsense that Obama is all talk and no action and that his legislative record is thin or manufactured, I thought it would be helpful to provide the link to the Obama campaign's listing of his record on their fact check site.

<a href='http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/01/'>http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/01/</a>

Notice that the lobbying reform bill that he got passed in Illinois was passed in the 1990s and the Earned Income Tax Credit bill he sponsored and which passed was a bill passed around the year 2000. His bill on videotaping of confessions was passed in 2003.

That puts the lie to <a href='http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print'>this article by Todd Spivak</a> that Hillary supporters keep sending around saying that Obama's accomplishments were all manufactured by Emil Jones in the last year Obama was in the legislature because Jones had decided to "make a Senator" -- a quote I would point out is not verified by Jones himself but is instead the heresay of an unnamed source.

There are a whole bunch of other pieces of legislation that he was also involved in that passed in the 90s or early 2000s when the legislature was not fully Democrat controlled that are also listed in this fact check.

Obama supporters should all check it out and make sure that everywhere you see Hillary supporters posting this nonsense, you counter it with these facts.

CNN also did something on <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/31/obamas.godfather.ap/index.html'>Emil JOnes</a> that was a bit fairer.

Cross posted at Daily Kos.

The question about wearing a cheapo lapel pin was a ridiculous one. The Bush administration has been wearing them for,nearly,eight years,now,and they will go down as the Worst bunch of rats in history. A pin has Nothing to do with the Real person,at all !   How stupid can you get ?  Do I,Really.have to tell you this ?  Hillary premeditated the lie about ducking bullets in Bosnia !!   Then she lied again trying to cover up on it !   Obama is Our choice ! 

This is my final thought on the Nash McCabe-ABC debate nonsense.

Basically, ABC/Gibson/Stephanopolous took on the role of Bush/Cheney while Mrs. McCabe played the part of Judith Miller. 

ABC had a phony issue/information [aka "Curveball"] that they wanted to get into the debate.  However, they didn't have enough guts to do it themselves.  So they found a sympathetic person in McCabe/Miller in which to launder their bogus question/information through.

Bush/Cheney/ABC then doubles back and cites the question being asked/newspaper article as a way to legitimize what they did.

When I watched the debate, my judgment was that ABC had botched the questions terribly.  On further review, it's even worse than I had imagined.

I'm sure the National Review doesn't get many links from TPM, but a couple of years ago they did a reasonable article on the MoveOn versus Rove flap that Hillary Clinton has inherited.

In looking at the blogs and comments here at TPM, I was struck by the fact that no one was citing the original petition that Eli Pariser and MoveOn pushed right after 9/11.

I'll let you read what I could find of it for yourselves.

"We implore the powers that be to use, wherever possible, international judicial institutions and international human rights law to bring to justice those responsible for the attacks, rather than the instruments of war, violence or destruction. Furthermore, we assert that the government of a nation must be presumed separate and distinct from any terrorist group that may operate within its borders, and therefore cannot be held unduly accountable for the latter's crimes. . ."

Truncated and published in the National Review, it seems to indicate that Rove -- and now Clinton -- actually got it right.  Pariser's and MoveOn's anti-war sentiment at the time did extend to opposing the use of military force against Afghanistan.  In other words, they opposed invading Afghanistan.

Apparently, unless someone has a better copy of the petition that shows that the portion of it the National Review published was taken out of context, Eli Pariser is a liar.

What seems strange to me is that so many readers jumped to the conclusion that Mr. Pariser and MoveOn, authors of the General Betrayus ad would not have opposed the invasion of Afghanistan.

Just because Senator Obama favored that invasion and MoveOn favors Senator Obama, we shouldn't conclude that MoveOn agreed with Senator Obama right after 9/11.

Recommendations of this post and reasoned arguments will be appreciated.  Remember, even if you disagree, if you want your comments to be read, you have to recommend the post.

A journalist in the Swamp has another story about what happened in Texas that counter's Wolfson's claim that Hillary was unfairly pushed around in the caucuses. In part:

I am a print journalist with 24 years experience in reporting Texas politics, admittedly more rural politics. Wolfson's comments are off-base. The Clinton campaign began attacking the process almost before it began. 

....the Texas Democratic Party primary system has been the same since 1988. The party, the campaigns and the media published extensive explanations before the primary to educate the public about the do-it-yourself nature of the precinct comventions (caucuses.) The problem came with an unbelievably large turnout. And no one could have predicted that Texas even would have a voice in the election when the convention (caucus) sites were selected and certified.

At the precinct caucuses in March, both Clinton and Obama supporters claimed the other side had manipulated the extraordinarily complicated "prima-cacus" or Texas two-step (really a four step with one still to go.) However, At the county convention, the only people who seemed to be trying to create dissension rather than solve problems associated with massive success, was the paid Clinton campaign worker who was not from Texas.

 She kept calling foul on delegates, some of whom were not legitimate, but they were dealt with by the credentials committee, a process already in place.
And throughout the day, she continued to shuttle back and forth among the precinct caucuses meeting to elect state delegates and me, giving me little digs against Obama and his campaign, all "off the record, but ... and I'm not suppose to say anything, but ... and please don't print this but, this is not working I know there are more people who shouldn't be here, I just can't find them. "
The system in Texas was created by the long-time party workers, many of whom are Clinton supporters.

It was the summer of 1972. I was working retail to pay for college. An FBI agent entered the store and flipped his badge at the boss. They talked in hushed tones. The FBI wanted to use a second-floor office for a stakeout. I later learned that they had a tip that Bill Ayers was going to visit a building across the street and they were trying to nab him. The stakeout room was also the place where I ate my bag lunch. So on this particular day I ate my peanut butter & jelly while a GMan peered through venetian blinds with binoculars.

So the question is this: am I guilty by association for the many sins of the FBI during the Hoover Era because I ate lunch in the same room with an agent who was staking out Bill Ayers?

Mother Jones has an interesting piece on Barney Frank and how he is fairing as the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. It portrays him as a powerless grump who can't get dems to back consumer friendly legislation. Just another example of how our system is broken and how many dems might as well be republicans.

A high-ranking labor supporter of Hillary Clinton is distributing
to union leaders and to Democratic strategists a document detailing the
radical activities of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, two former members of
the '70s group the Weather Underground, who decades later, in Chicago,
crossed paths with Barack Obama.

The document - a three-page emailed essay by Rick Sloan,
communications director for the International Association of Machinists as
Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) -- takes both literary and political license to
outline what Sloan believes would be the thrust of a hypothetical
Republican campaign against Obama focusing on his tangential connection to
Ayers and Dohrn.

The goal of the essay appears to be to discredit Obama as the
prospective Democratic presidential nominee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/clinton-backer-distribute_n_97525.html

--------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama is the frontrunner for the democratic nomination. This behavior by the clinton campaign is unacceptable to any responsible democrat. Hillary supporters, it is time to decide whether you are willing to support Hillary to the end on this. Seriously. She is singlehandedly trying to put John McCain into the White House.

I understand that she has supporters who truly believe that she could be a better president than Barack Obama. But can you sincerely stand beside her as she tries to sink her own party? There has to be a line at which point supporters are either simply for their candidate, without any respect for the needs of the party, or they are for the party even if it means saying goodbye to their candidate.

I think that Clinton has reached that threshold. If she had not when she blatantly supported John McCain over Barack, she has done so with her actions since that time.

Responsible democrats, democrats who oppose what the republicans have done to our country and will continueto do if McCain is elected, please stand up. Most importantly, Hillary supporters who are more in line with the democratic agenda than you are with Hillary herself, please stand up.

I do not want to be at war with Iraq for the next 8 years. I do not want to see John McCain put any justices on the supreme court. I do not want to see women lose rights that they have fought for.

It is time to end this. Hillary must walk away or be dragged from the building. Democrats should stand for more than the candidate, they should stand behind the ideas.

In interviews as recently as a CNN interview Monday April 7, '08 She has made false claims about Obama and his economic advisors promises to the Canadian Govt. on NAFTA.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZcnxgLfc2j0&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZcnxgLfc2j0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Let us Dainiqu tourism, we can expect to enjoy the pleasure it Http://www.travel-myworld.com

By the end of October in Thailand finishes so called “rain season”, so now it’s just the right time to visit this country and to see all its sightseeing.
Before going to one of its sea resorts, most of which have recovered from the last year’s tsunami, it could be very interesting to spend some time in Thailand’s capital – Bangkok. Bangkok is 8-million metropolis. You can live here for several years but still find something new. However 24 hours is quite enough to fall in love with the city and to see the best it can offer.
For the last 200 years Bangkok has been the residence of the Tai’s kings. Live in Bangkok boils up round the clock. All the big shops and small stores are open 24 hours a day. The night is the best time in Bangkok. No heat, bright lights… Even the mud, so usual for the oriental city seems to hide under the cover of the dark.
Impetuous Bangkok’s nightlife attracts a lot of people, mostly tourists from the West. All bars, clubs and discos are always overcrowded. Noise, smoke, different shows (go-go, burlesk etc) and Thai’s massage become the symbols of unforgettable Bangkok’s nights.
When the night is over, if you still have forces, you can enjoy all the traditional attractions tourists usually visit.
As Thailand's capital, Bangkok boasts the outstanding monuments of country’s past. Bangkok's best temples include Wat Trimitr with its five and a half ton solid gold Buddha, Wat Po with its huge reclining Buddha - the first traditional massage school in Thailand, (massages are avalable.) and Wat Banjamaborpitr - the White Marble Temple - one of Bangkok's most beautiful temples with impressive Thai architecture. Even if you're short on time you should visit with the Grand Palace - Bangkok's most famous landmark is a former residence of the Kings of Thailand.
In November Bangkok hosts the Royal Rattanakosin Loy Krathong Festival. Loy Krathong is celebrated in different styles. This special festival includes a revival of traditional ceremonies, games, contests and competitions: Krathong Competition, and Thai costume contest. The festival lasts several days. You can choose only one of them – and see the most beautiful Thai’s traditions and the most impressive national dresses.
Now, when you saw it all you can continue your vacations on Phuket, Pattaya or any other resort. Many tourists after visiting Bangkok decide to see Laos or Cambodia that are not so far away.

About the author:
If you like to know about how to book hotel in any country of the world, please visit http://www.allrez.com


Let us Dainiqu tourism, we can expect to enjoy the pleasure it
Http://www.travel-myworld.com

Let us Dainiqu tourism, we can expect to enjoy the pleasure it
 
Http://www.travel-myworld.com

Greater Los Angeles is larger than life and it’s packed with wondrous places to explore, sights to see and interesting people to rub elbows with. Its five-county area covers 34,149 square miles, has 88 incorporated cities and is home to one of the world’s most culturally diverse populations. The region’s landscape reaches from posh desert oases and alpine recreation areas to the Pacific Coast with its 81 miles of pristine beaches. The climate is ideal throughout the year and many of the state’s and country’s most familiar icons are found here.
Los Angeles is the ideal destination for a hub and spoke itinerary. There are 27 major freeways which crisscross the region and travel over 600 miles. By selecting a favorite home base, groups can easily take daily excursions that are within reasonable driving distances and be able to spend a full day sailing to Catalina Island, golfing in Palm Springs, “star”-gazing in Hollywood or culture shopping at NOHO.

If it is a group’s first visit to the area, you may want to highlight a selection of the area icons that include a trip to the beach, a tour of a film studio, sightseeing in the star’s homes neighborhoods, a visit to some of the region’s art museums and high profile area attractions.
Check out the neighborhoods of Los Angeles. The area is divided into seven large districts that encompass a collection of smaller neighborhoods. Each has its own distinctive personality, icons, and attractions, areas of interest, accommodations, dining and shopping options. Follow the special interests of your travelers and
scope out each of the districts for the right combination of itinerary features.

Downtown

This is the heart of Los Angeles and the center of the region’s commerce, city and country government and historic roots. It is also a lively theater, entertainment and dining center, and a hub forshopping, ranging from boutique to retail centers. Also downtown are the LA fashion district, Flower Market and Grand Central Market.

Hollywood :

This district has “star power” and is a center for art and design. The film industry is celebrated at the Hollywood & Highland Entertainment Complex, home of the Academy Awards. There are the classic Egyptian and Grauman’s Chinese Theaters, the historic Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel and the Hollywood Entertainment Museum. Also here are the Sunset Strip, Avenues of Art and Design which include the Museum of Contemporary Art, the Pacific Design Center and more than 30 art galleries.

Westside :

Many of LA’s most exclusive residences are here, as well as several ethnic communities including Korea Town, Thai Town and a hub for African- American culture. In this district you find the Museum of Tolerance, CBS studios filmings, the historic Farmers Market, Peterson Auto Museum, LA County Art Museum and the La Brea Tar Pits. Westwood is home to UCLA and the Armand Hammer Museum of Art and Culture and in Brentwood is the 110- acre Getty Center and the Skirball Cultural Center.

About the author:
For More Details on Southern California Visit


Let us Dainiqu tourism, we can expect to enjoy the pleasure it
Http://www.travel-myworld.com

Let us Dainiqu tourism, we can expect to enjoy the

pleasure it
Http://www.travel-myworld.com

Dubai is a prosperous and cosmopolitan city. It mixes old town mosques and souks alongside modern high rise skyscrapers. The majority of this wealthy city has been built in the last 20 years and incorporates much in the way of futuristic architecture.

Construction is a feature of the city and there is constant building activity. The Dubai Waterfront project will add 500 miles of man-made waterfront to the city. These artificial islands will add up to a space roughly 7 times the size of Manhattan!!

Situated on the south sore of the Arabian Gulf, Dubai is one of seven emirates that make up the United Arab Emirates. The population of Dubai City is over 1 million. The majority of the city’s population (80%) is made up of expatriates the majority of whom are from South Asia. The city is split in two by the Dubai Creek. Trade, oil and tourism all play a major part in Dubai’s economy and have taken over the traditional occupations of fishing, pearl diving and camel breeding. The area around Dubai City is desert and sparsely populated.

The weather is Dubai is extremely hot during the summer months so the best time to visit is during the winter months. During Ramadan it is illegal to publicly eat or drink and so this time is unpopular with tourists. Dubai is a liberal tourist destination and tolerant and safe to visit. However women are advised to dress conservatively when amongst locals.

Visitors are attracted to Dubai by the world class sports events and air shows as well as the fantastic shopping attractions and air conditioned malls. Dubai claims to be the shopping center of the world. The shopping attractions range from traditional crafts and arts to ultra modern designer fashions and electronics. The Dubai Shopping Festival is a yearly event held during January and February. The Dubai Summer Surprises is a summer month shopping spectacular which makes the most of the cheap hotel rates.

There are vast contrasts in the different types of restaurants brought about by the different mix of cultures. Asian, European and Arabic restaurants abound and range in price from budget to five-star.

There is an extensive range of high class hotels and resorts in Dubai. These places offer enticing discounts when the weather gets hot and during Ramadan. There is also a plethora of world class entertainment offerings which includes something for everyone’s taste. Fabulous nightclubs abound.

Dubai is a shinning jewel in the Middle East and a fabulous place to visit and offers beach resorts amidst traditional buildings and mosques and high rise skyscrapers. The city is popular with tourists because there are a wide variety of things to do and interesting places to see.

About the author:
Stan Smith writes for Four Corners Hotels http://www.fourcornershotels.com/index.php/AE—Dubai which offers hotels in cities around the world including hotels located in Dubai.

Let us Dainiqu tourism, we can expect to enjoy the

pleasure it
Http://www.travel-myworld.com

Let us Dainiqu tourism, we can expect to enjoy the

pleasure it
Http://www.travel-myworld.com

Let us Dainiqu tourism, we can expect to enjoy the pleasure it
Http://www.travel-myworld.com


Cook Islands Travel

A Cook Islands travel is like discovering a heavenly sanctuary perfect for a secluded, quiet escape. Situated in the middle of Pacific Ocean, with a few inhabitants and paradise-like surroundings, a trip to the islands would be an authentic and refined Pacific experience encased in a lifestyle exuding with utmost warmth and happiness and peace. Despite the number of 90,000 visitors a year to its capital island "Rarotonga" the Cook Islands is largely unspoiled by the tourism. Nowhere could a high-rise hotel be found, and there are only four beach buggies and very little hype around. The density of the crowd is not intruding to a restful and calm environment that a vacationer needs.

The Cook Islands are located in the South Pacific, about 1875 miles (3015 km) north east of Auckland. They lie in the center of the Polynesian Triangle, flanked to the west by The Kingdom of Tonga and the Samoas and to the east by Tahiti and the islands of French Polynesia. The Cooks' nearest neighbors are Tahiti to the east and American Samoa to the west, each roughly 1500km (930 miles) away.

A Travel to Cook Islands is easy. The fastest way, of course, is through flying. The international airport for the Cooks is on Rarotonga. This makes a convenient stop for trans-Pacific aircraft because Rarotonga lies at the heart of the Polynesian triangle. There are several weekly scheduled flights from New Zealand, Tahiti, Hawaii, Los Angeles and Fiji. Also, there are some other passenger plane services flying from Australia and New Zealand.

On the other hand, you can streamline your entry to the islands with the most romantic scenery through an ocean liner. If you have plenty of time and interest and wonder for the sea, the best method is probably by yacht. Then you could spend weeks navigating your way around all the northern atolls and seeing the South Seas the way the ancient voyagers did.

Almost everyone in Cook Islands speak English, so communication wouldn't be a problem. For a Cook Islands travel, accommodation isn't also an issue, for it is plentiful in the southern group islands—hotels and motels and lodges are easy to find. There are also an array of resorts, deluxe villas, bungalows, self-catering accommodations, apartment units, cabins, budget and backpacking hostels and guest houses—all types of accommodation to suit your pockets.

There are also a lot of adventure in store for the active soul. Activities for visitors are many and varied. They include hiking, pony trekking, diving (both scuba and snorkeling), sports and game fishing, cultural tours, bird-watching tours, scenic flights, golf, tennis, squash and lawn bowls. Arts and crafts can be bought on Rarotonga as well as black pearls which is a major industry in these islands.

In search for holiday destination, island hopping or a spectacular adventure? Search no more. Ideal for travelers who are seeking more than the usual clichés that are associated with the South Seas, each island has its unique qualities and offers the visitor a special experience. People here are eager to share their rich culture and a lush tapestry of traditions that entwine within their daily living. With the utmost peace and seclusion, you are in for an immersion to one unforgettable getaway.

For more Cook Islands Travel Information, visit GoVisitCookIslands.com. A complete travel guide for the Cook Islands.

<p>Everyone I talk to feels there is a need for an uprising buy the citizenry of this country to take it back and turn it into a democracy. However, from my view it will not happen. For the most part the people are too comfortable in their skin. They also are overcome by fear to stand up against the ones that run the direction the country is headed.</p>

<p>The main reason I feel that nothing will be done to restore this country is; With all the actions this cabal has taken against the best interest of the people, the Masses have not yet arisen. they will find it too late and soon.</p>

<p>Do not overlook any actions that Bush may take from here on out, he is not a true Lame Duck. However, there is something that should scare you, (but not in the same way that the Government is doing it and that is this, That fear goes by the name of, <b>Dick Cheney</b>!</p> <a href=http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/iran_nuclear_strike/2008/04/14/87887.html?s=sp&promo_code=4948-1>News Max</a>

<blockquote>“Look at Dick Cheney’s recent trip through the Middle East as preparation for the U.S. attack,” the source said.

Cheney’s hastily arranged 9-day visit to the region, which began on March 16, included stops in Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Turkey, and the Palestinian territories.

Tensions in the region have been rising.</blockquote>

<p>As I have pointed out before, this administration along with the 109th congress has increased the powers of the Executive Branch (mostly in the area of the Vice President’s office).

<ahref=http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/070107C.shtml>Truth Out.org</a>

<blockquote><p>But few noticed another change inserted five times in the revised text: every provision that gave powers to the president over classified documents was amended to give the identical powers to the vice president. This unprecedented increase in vice-presidential clout, though spelled out in black and white, went virtually unremarked in contemporary news accounts.</p>

<p>Given all the other unprecedented prerogatives that President Bush has handed his vice president, this one might seem to be just more of the same. But both the timing of the executive order and the subsequent use Mr. Cheney would make of it reveal its special importance in the games that the White House played with prewar intelligence.</p>

<p>The obvious juncture for Mr. Bush to bestow these new powers on his vice president, you might expect, would have been soon after 9/11, especially since the review process on the Clinton order started a month earlier and could be expedited, as so much other governmental machinery was, to meet the urgent national-security crisis. Yet the new executive order languished for another 18 months, only to be published and signed with no fanfare on March 25, 2003, a week after the invasion of Iraq began.</p></blockquote>

<p>Since that point in the history of this administration, the power of the Executive Branch has grown through the use of Executive Orders and Directives. Also with laws passed like H.R. 418, MCA2006, MCA2007, and the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, which weaken the powers of the Judicial Branch to oversee certain acts used by the Executive Branch, and Homeland Security, the rights of the citizenry fall into danger. (even more so than with the Patriot Act itself.)</p>

<p>What I fear the most is that this administration not being able to (as of yet) strike Iran is setting up that opportunity for the next.</p>

<p><b>Will Who is Put in Power Matter in “08”</b></p>

<p>Let’s look at the <i>New Found Powers</i> that the next “Puppet” will find at his or her fingertips. I do not see them renouncing these powers, and the control they give over the people. The one thing that could make a difference, is if they are presented with the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court Justices. However, I feel that might only really have effect on major decision, <i>a woman’s right to choice.</i></p>

<p>In the Debates held on Wednesday, we saw that the two Democrats are not as far apart on the issues as they would like you to think. But the one thing that should worry people is that they are not far from John McCain on the “War Issue”.</p>

<a href=http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/the_us_iraq_and_100_years.php>CJR.org</a>

<blockquote><p><b>Questioner:</b> President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…</p>

<p><b>McCain:</b>

Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.</p></blockquote>

<p>Although she did not say that we would stay in Iraq for 100 years, Hillary fells that the U.S. should remain aggressive in the world. On page 13 of the transcript in the <a href=>New York Times</a>, a question form Pittsburgh PA. starts the Iraq issue and both candidates only half answer it. However it is the following question asked by George STEPHANOPOULOS that shows the candidates plans for that region.</p>

<blockquote>MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let's stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?

SEN. OBAMA: <p>(This is the 1st part of Obama’s response.)Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I'm president of the United States.</p>

<p>(This is the last part of that same response) SENATOR OBAMA: As I've said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security we consider paramount, and that -- that would be an act of aggression that we -- that I would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.</p></blockquote>

<p>George posed the same question to Hillary and I feel her answer was as Hawkish as one of John McCain’s answers.</p>

<blockquote><p>MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?</p>

<p>(This is the first part of the answer)SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.</p>

<p>You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.</p>

<p>(This is the last part of the response) And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.</p>

<p>Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.</p></blockquote>

<p>So as you can see the 3 choices that have been placed in front of us do not differ in any great amount on the military issue for the Middle East.</p>

<p>However, the main reason this caught my ear is, the media is not talking about the way that question was phrased. Any way you look at George worded it that Iran has Nukes. Also with the answer she gave we can see why Hillary Clinton voted for the Kyle Lieberman resolution, and Obama missed it.</p>

ABA

Yesterday I posted an entry on the scurrilous charge -- emanating from right-wing blogs -- that Sen. Obama had "flipped off" Sen. Clinton during a town hall meeting in Raleigh. The video of the event shows that he did no such thing, but that didn't stop the charge from making its way to MSNBC and Fox News.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200804180010?f=h_latest

What bothered me at the time I wrote the TPM entry yesterday was that such a ludicrous allegation was being made. One Democratic candidate making an obscene gesture to another, on camera, in front of hundreds of people? Even without the video evidence, it's a self-evidently absurd thing to say.

But what bothered me even more were the responses I've seen to both my entry and to other pieces written about this in which ostensibly pro-Obama commenters were wishing that Obama actually would "flip off" Hillary.

Now, I'm no Clinton fan. I've supported Obama since before day one, and will continue to support Obama as the Democratic nominee. I think the tactics Hillary has employed in her increasingly self-destructive bid for the nomination have been deplorable, and I don't think she would be a good president. But please, don't go wishing that the candidates would debase themselves by engaging in schoolyard taunts that excite the juvenile outrage of conservative bloggers. As much as Clinton is deserving of criticism, it's the politicians, pundits, and bloggers on the right who spawn this drivel and will continue to peddle it regardless of its veracity.

Save your middle fingers for them.

Here is article over by Politico which is giving some open dicussion to Obama being shielded by the media while Hillary gets the bad rap from them. It makes for interesting reading.. take a peek.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html

However, what's the matter with the media being Obama's secret weapon? What are we thinking here? Are we to believe that the average human being cannot and will not assess people for what they are and make decisions about those people?

Look, the people who serve in the media are very human too and no matter how much they wish to do fair and balanced reporting, they will never be able to achieve such in truth and in fact. So, with their human spirit, they are turning to the person who they feel most comfortable with. The person who they can trust. The person who best represents what they are looking for in a president.

We act like the people in the media do not vote and are not personally involved in the election process. They are... surprise, surprise. They to have to find a president for themselves like any other voter. If Hillary wants a better break with the media then she needs to become a darling to them too. She needs to make herself desireable too and not bully them into supporting her talking points. She needs to come over as honest and truthful. She needs a better marketing plan.

So forget this crap about Obama getting a break from the media. He is marketing himself correctly.. its working. What's the complaint?

It speaks for itself.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QORZY11IHMo

I ask you this question though.  How the hell is McCain going to be able to stand against Obama's support? 

i saw this on the local news, details to follow shortly..i am not surprised, as i have learned now, all that happens is good for obama...and cause for another post on TPM bashing clinton or extolling the lastest brilliant move of the senator from illinois

if obama falls down stairs...high five, another well calculated move, or else, it had to be hillary tripping him, that bitch!!!!!

but now i am one of the pod people, i resisted so long and so hard, but the multiplicity of posts here and elsewhere in liberal land got the best of me...yes, obama we have no wrong we have hope, audacious hope and gosh, its so spine tingling, i now see what all the others have been hooked on before, so so sad i resisted.

will obama heal the crippled? i do not know, but why not give it a try, who knows, it could work and even if it didnt, hillary probably would have run in a fake cripple anyway who would keep acting like one, the son of a bitch

Part 2 in my Fighting back blog:

There is a simple argument for contesting Republican claims to support the troops:

As a candidate for X, I promise that contractors will never be paid better than active military and reserve personnel. Our young men deserve better than to see their private contract counterparts get paid up to 5 times more for the same job. This is a huge burden to taxpayers and to the morale of our troops. I will work with our military leaders to improve our reserves and ensure that our military can perform all of the activities currently performed by contractors. If we need to boost our pay rates to get the people that we need, I am perfectly willing to do so. However, I am not comfortable enriching the friends of Republican leaders while our young men in the military are making such great sacrafices.

I am sure everyone is sick and tired of Republicans portrayal of all oponents as unpatriotic. However, there was only one candidate in the race who an unpatriotic and borderline treasonous campaign:

Mike Huckabee

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

There has never been a candidate in my memory that pledged to rewrite the Constitution based on his religious beliefs. In fact, the founding fathers intentionally wrote the Constitution and other founding documents to forbid this country from ever becoming a theocracy. For years, I have read about Republican judges being "strict constitutionists" yet this man wants to chuck out our rich history of freedom of religion to rewrite the Constitution from the Southern Baptist perspective. If I were a Democratic candidate, I would personally ridicule any right wing attack about patriotism or religion with the following statement:

I love my country and the founding documents that form the basis of our political system. I have profound respect for rights to religion and free speech. The second place Republican Presidential candidate does not share my concerns about wants to rewrite the Constitution based on his personal religious beliefs. As a candidate, he has openly mocked the beliefs of Mormons and made comments that trivialize the horrors of the holocaust. This is an extremely dangerous man that seemingly wants to dictate his religious views to myself and my children. My own patriotism dictates that I fight for the rest of my life to ensure our religious freedom. I would hope that Candidate X shares my opinion that Mike Huckabee should not be tolerated as a prominent member of the Republican party.

There it is: simple and IMO indefensible. We simply cannot sit back and let Republicans dictate the patriotism argument while they run candidates who openly state their desire to rip up the Constitution and dictate a state religion.

Senator Clinton has blamed everyone for her losses--- but the real answer is Obama's talent and her lack candor. Sorry so short but I think that is it in a nutshell.

Senator Clinton's bashing of certain Democrats who do not support her is disheartening and duplicitous on many levels.

First, and most importantly, it unfairly seeks to characterize Senator Obama's popularity and ability to raise funds as being an extension of Democratic activists. In fact, from the start Senator Obama's support has been from a broad section of the Democratic base. The intensity is just as strong in many "moderate " democrats such as I generally consider myself than it is from the " Democratic Activists " she seeks to demonize.

Second, Senator Clinton in desparately seeking to explain her many landslide losses seeks to diminish the deep respect and enthusiasm many Democrats ( and others) have for Senator Obama . Her statements and her entire strategy is to tear Obama and his supporters down rather than lift herself up. I do not seek to diminish Senator Clinton's supporters, which includes my wife, and I do not think the Obama campaign has either. Senator Clinton's landslide losses are a result of Senator Obama's talent and a real thirst for change among millions of Americans -- away from slash and burn politics to something that resembles sound thinking and judgment even if it is outside the box of traditional Washington thinking.

Finally. Senator Clinton's remarks once again underscore her lack of candor and fundamental devisive nature which has been a hall mark of her entire political career. She seizes on any controversy and lets it rip irrespective of the facts or her own past conflicting positions snd then equates such conduct with toughness. The tactics of seeking to raise the negatives of your opponent and diminish voter enthusiasm are classic , but that does not make them less repulsive or disingenuous .

There will be an end to this soon, it will not be pretty, rather, it will likely be a lot like Senator Clinton has been acting--- Superbad. 

Whether time will heal the wounds is unknown. I think it will as the wounds are superficial and the Country's desire for change will most likely trump the gotcha politics.  The challenge is to continue to talk about the real issues facing our Country and how to solve them even when the noise and media seek to change the subject. 

First, Hillary blamed red state democracts, but I didn't care because I am not a red state democract.

Then, Hillary blamed the small state caucuses, but I didn't care because I don't live in a small state with a caucus.

Then, she blamed blacks block-voting for one of their own, but I didn't care, because I am not black.

Then, she blamed latte-drinkers, but I didn't care because I drink expresso.

Then, she blame MoveOn, but I didn't care because I am not a member.

Then, Hillary blamed me, and by that time there was no one left to care.

I think Hillary was honestly relaying her emotional memories of the landing in Bosnia.  I think she knew she was going into a dangerous area and was scared to death that something would go wrong.  Years later in retrospect she remembered the internal feeling and not the external facts.

I also believe that she has never used this as a defense because she knows she would be labeled weak and too feminine and she is probably right.  And that may be the root of the problem, not that the world would judge her for being emotional, but that in her heart of hearts, she agrees with them.

I do believe, however, that when the woman we will finally elect to be President of the United States runs for office, she will be able to finesse these issues in the same way Obama transcends race.  When that woman runs; I will vote for her.

Cross-posted at kos.

First, I would imagine everyone has read some variation of the Nash McCabe story.  I think the McClatchy report is the best; it's posted HERE.

Second, it's impossible to not be completely sympathetic to her plight.  I grew up in a single mother, living paycheck-to-paycheck household.  It's an incredible strain; and terribly difficult to break the cycle.

Third, I think Nash McCabe perfectly encapsulates the larger point that Barack Obama was attempting to make with his "bitter" comments. 

A little background regarding Nash McCabe and the circumstances that led her to ask this question to Barack Obama in Wednesday's debate:

Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

Nash McCabe lives in Latrobe, PA, located forty miles southeast of Pittsburgh.  The population of the city is less than 10,000 and the city lost more than 20% of its population between the 1990 and 2000 census.  Latrobe is almost 99% white.  

McCabe is fifty-two years old.  She met her husband at a dance in 1983, and married him two months later.  They have been married since.

Six months into the marriage, Nash's husband was injured in an accident at the coal mine in which he worked.  He has been unable to work since then.  

The McClatchy article stated:

They never had children. He had back surgery. The muscle relaxers he took damaged his heart. He's had three bypasses, nine angioplasties, seven stents and a pacemaker. Three months ago doctors found a brain tumor. His choice: surgery that he may or may not survive, or life in a wheelchair.

Over 25 years of marriage, McCabe was the breadwinner. She said it took eight years to get her husband disability payments, during which time they racked up huge bills.

"I was a nurse's aide, a cashier," McCabe said. "From 1996 to 2000, I was a manager of a cleaning company. I started out as secretary and worked my way up to manager, and then the company decided to close. It took me almost two-and-a-half years to find a job that I got laid off from recently" as a clerk-typist. She has a high school diploma.

Sometimes the McCabes borrow money from her parents, who are in their 70s. She has a request in to the local food bank to see if she and her husband qualify.

Basically, a heartbreaking account of someone with an incredible amount of economic uncertainty, long-term health care concerns and obvious uneasiness about the ability to find steady work.  In sum, Nash McCabe is the perfect embodiment of the very real substantive concerns that are weighing heavily on many Americans.

So, what does Nash McCabe want to know about Barack Obama?

I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

That's not an indictment of Mrs. McCabe.  She has every right to be concerned about whatever issue she wants, regardless of what I think of her question.  Is a flag pin going to make it easier for her to find a job?  Make sure her husband is getting his disability payments?  Trying to find decent health care?  Of course not; it's not relevant to anything that might be able to improve her family's day-to-day lives and allow them to be able to live with a little dignity and security.

All of which brings me to Sen. Obama.  Here's what he said--and, by the way, I can't read these words, even as inartfully as he attempts to make his point and not think of Nash McCabe:

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).  [Next paragraph edited out]

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Again, the last sentence was not expressed in a manner that Sen. Obama would have preferred, as he himself has stated.  However, up until the word 'bitter,' doesn't this sentiment both express and have sympathy for Pennsylvanians like Nash McCabe?  Out of touch?  Has a politician in our lifetime been more in touch with the struggles faced by folks in this country?

All of the problems that Nash McCabe faces and what's the issue with which she has chosen to express the most concern: whether Barack Obama has a flag pin on his lapel?

That's where we are in this country.  That's why, imperfect as he is, Barack Obama is the best choice for president of the United States.

God bless. 

I just couldn't resist this one.  I've been attempting to ween myself off of 'Clinton' stories, but, damn--they make it so easy when they tee it up for you.

Clinton aide, Jay Carson, sent a strongly worded letter [something that I have often threatened but never actually done] to Tom Shales of the Washington Post.  You might recall, Shales, who I happen to think is a dynamite writer, lambasted ABC for its debate performance.

Carson's letter basically whines that Mr. Shales wasn't so critical when Sen. Clinton was being mistreated [in the perception of her campaign, at least].  It's hilarious.

So . . . now the Clinton campaign is picking fights with respected media critics that were critiquing ABC and not THEIR CANDIDATE? And this helps Sen. Clinton . . . how exactly? 

Oh, and make sure you do it on the same day the campaign is rolling out a coordinated message that Sen. Obama is "complaining" and "can't stand the heat". 

Who's in charge of this freakshow?

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid271557392?bctid=1509297894

PHILADELPHIA — Barack Obama was greeted by the largest crowd of his campaign Friday night in Philadelphia. Some 35,000 people jammed into Independence Park to see the Democratic presidential candidate, four days before this state's crucial April 22 primary.

Frank Friel, director of security at the Independence Visitor Center, made the official estimate.

The crowd exceed the 30,000 who greeted Obama and Oprah Winfrey in December in Columbia, S.C.

Obama told the crowd the United States is at a crucial moment in its history, much like what the founding fathers faced in Philadelphia.

"It was over 200 years ago that a group of patriots gathered in this city to do something that no one in the world believed they could do," Obama said. "After years of a government that didn't listen to them, or speak for them, or represent their hopes and their dreams, a few humble colonists came to Philadelphia to declare their independence from the tyranny of the British throne."

The Illinois senator called Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a "tenacious" opponent but said it was time to move beyond the politics of the 1990s.

"Her message comes down to this: We can't really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it," Obama said.

"More than 60 members of Congress, most from President Alvaro Uribe's conservative coalition, are being investigated for possible links to drug-running paramilitaries who have terrorized Colombia for years in the name of combating left-wing rebels."

I haven't seen this anywhere but Reuters yet. I'm no Colombia expert either, but considering Bush and his efforts to ram the Colombia Free Trade Agreement through our own scandal-ridden Congress, it does give one pause as to what's going on in Colombia.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-colombia-paramilitaries.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

BOGOTA (Reuters) - Colombian government ministries and other state institutions are infiltrated by outlawed right-wing militias, a witness told judges in testimony on Friday that could further imperil a U.S. trade deal.

More than 60 members of Congress, most from President Alvaro Uribe's conservative coalition, are being investigated for possible links to drug-running paramilitaries who have terrorized Colombia for years in the name of combating left-wing rebels.

The probe's star witness, former intelligence official Rafael Garcia, now in jail for erasing the criminal histories of paramilitary leaders from a government database, told the Supreme Court the armed forces, government ministries and other institutions were also rife with "paras."

"Congress is not the only institution penetrated by the paramilitaries," he said while testifying against a senator caught in the scandal.

The allegation could increase resistance in Washington to a U.S.-Colombia free trade deal, blocked by House of Representatives Democrats concerned that Uribe is not doing enough to protect labor union members who are often targeted by the paramilitaries.

Trade Minister Luis Guillermo Plata, the Colombian official in charge of getting the deal passed, said Garcia lacked credibility and did not back up his statements with evidence.

Uribe's former intelligence chief, Jorge Noguera, is jailed and awaiting trial on charges he provided a death list of union officials and human rights workers to the illegal groups.

The president remains popular for cutting common crime and spurring the economy with his crackdown on Marxist rebels.

Since 2003, he has negotiated the demobilization of more than 30,000 paramilitary fighters who committed some of the worst atrocities of Colombia's four-decade-old guerrilla war.

The militias were formed in the 1980s to protect drug traffickers, cattle ranchers and other rich Colombians from the rebels, who are also funded by cocaine.

Authorities said earlier this week they were investigating an army colonel and six soldiers for colluding with violent paramilitary drug smugglers. Public corruption is widespread in Colombia, the world's biggest cocaine producer.

The country has received billions of dollars in U.S. aid to help bolster security. But cocaine exports remain above 600 tons a year, according to the United Nations.

(Reporting by Hugh Bronstein; Editing by Peter Cooney)

I don't know why Barack Obama [almost] never wears a flag pin, though I can tell you why I am uncomfortable with wearing one.
If you check the US Flag code,  http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html , you will see that using the flag as an article of clothing is considered disrespectful save in two circumstances--well three, but I propose that it is really only two:
1) as a service patch for military and for civilian workers such as firemen and policemen;2) a carefully designed and authorized "flag lapel button" only to be worn by immediate family members of the armed forces during a time of war or hostilities;3) the flag pin, which can be worn by anyone, as long as it is on the left lapel near the heart.
I've always felt uncomfortable about the last,  because it seemed so odd to forbid clothing except in special circumstances, while giving a flag pin a pass, and I just re-read the flag code. The flag lapel button is mentioned eight times in the flag code, always with the article "the." Careful guidelines are given as to who is authorized to wear it, who is allowed to make it and what fines can be levied against its un-authorized manufacture ($10,000 in 1942!!!), but no explanation is given about where to wear it, save "lapel."
The flag pin, on the other hand, has no guidelines whatsoever save where to wear it. There are two possibilities:
1: the flag pin is meant to be made by anyone, designed by anyone, worn by anyone, for any reason, even though it isn't mentioned anywhere else in the flag code--you can even design it to look like the special privilege flag button without risk of fine if you like;
or
2: "pin" is a typo and the code should read "the lapel flag button" and only authorized people can wear it or make it as it says elsewhere in the code.
My intuition is that my original uneasy feeling about wearing flag pins is correct: they are inherently disrespectful, according to the flag code and it is only a typo that allows them to exist and be worn without remark.

I am one of Obama's biggest supporters...not just because I really like him, but also because I believe in his messages and his politics. Sometimes, when the Clinton's or the press' negativity becomes too much, I simply turn to another channel.
That said, I sincerely believe that the primary and, indeed, the general election in November is Obama's to lose. Why do I say that? We live in a wired world and also an oppinionated one too...very few people are on the fence...notably, a fraction of democratic white working men in the primaries and a large fraction of the white female voters in the general election (I know that some of you will disagree with me).
Once the primaries are over, I believe the democrats will come together and Obama will get almost 90% of Clinton's supporters (they form the base of the democratic party and I don't see them voting any other way, except those that simply won't vote for him based on his race).
In the general election, I think there will be a large fraction of white female voters who are still undecided between Obama and McCain. I believe that Obama's victory lies in him convincing them to vote for him.
At this point, a lot of things break Obama's way except for when his patriotism is question and that can be a pretty effective strategy as seen in 2004.
This is why I said the races are Obama's to lose as shown during the debate on Wednesday.
If you decide over 6 months ago not to wear a flag lapel pin (as inconsequencial as that seem), you should have come up with a pretty good reason as to why you refuse to wear one. This is politics...you know it's going to come up again, brainstorm and come up with a good reason. If you can't, then wear one. I saw his rambling response and I was mad as hell because I expected him to have come up with a better answer in the 6 months.
Other questions that came up on Wednesday (and they will surely come up again) are Rev Wright and his bitter comments.
As a 200% Obama supporter, I will advise him to come up with excellent responses because if he gives the mangled responses he gave on Wednesday, a lot of the white female supporters will flock to McCain. Right now, I believe, they are just looking for an excuse.
A lot of McCabes (who simply despises Obama, according to McClatchy, because of "his meteoric rise") will surface in the next few months. It will be a shame for Obama to lose an election because he does not have good answers to questions we all know will recycle itself.

HOLY CRAP!  WAY TO GO HILLARY!  THIS GROUP WAS CREATED TO DEFEND BILL and HILL IN THE 1990'S.  SUPERDELEGATES KNOW WE NEED THEIR VOTES!



At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates, who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.

The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.

"You've been asking the tough questions," Clinton said in April of last year at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event. "You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power."

Clinton's criticism followed MoveOn's endorsement of Obama in early February. The group was initially established in 1999 to oppose the Republican-led effort to impeach President Bill Clinton, and now claims 3.2 million members.

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio, and elaborated on Clinton's charge that these same party activists were engaged in acts of intimidation against her supporters: "There have been well documented instances of intimidation in the Nevada and the Texas caucuses, and it is a fact that while we have won 4 of the 5 largest primaries, where participation is greatest, Senator Obama has done better in caucuses than we have." About Clinton's remarks suggesting dismay over high Democratic activist turnout, Wolfson said, "I'll let my statement stand as is."

In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place.

The disclosure of Clinton's statement disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies.

The story that broke on Huffington post tonight highlights an audio tape at a Clinton fundraiser in which she's berating moveon.org, accusing them of interfering with her supporters at caucuses.  By distancing herself from the far left, she's more appealing to undecideds and independents closer to center.  It's just too stupid a ruse to think otherwise.  That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.  

I thought I would provide a  counterpoint to the rampant discussion in here recently about "The Worst Debate of All Time".


Question:

The key point of distinct DIFFERENCE  that has come down to us in history about the famous Kennedy-Nixon debates of 1960  (the model we all hark back to as to how it should be done) - the SINGLE most salient reason cited as to who won and WHY, was:


(Multiple choice - one answer accepted)



(a)National Health Insurance
(b)Control of Federal spending
(c)Policy to rebuild American manufacturing infrastructure
(d)Confronting Soviet expansionism
(e)The physical appearance of the respective candidates



Participate freely! I'll give the answer later in the COMMENT section, and then I'll rest my case.

Sometimes, as a distraction from politics, I watch Tyra Banks' "America's Next Top Model" because most of my friends and female coworkers watch all of these types of shows (the dance one, the Simon one, the bachelor one, the rock star one, etc.) and I like to have something to talk about during every smoke break besides politics. 

Tyra's show has been through 10 "cycles" now (seasons, only shorter) and it's gotten so tired and uninspiring that I can't stand to watch it anymore. 

Tyra used to have some really interesting challenges and photo shoots for her top model contestants, and all of them involved known designers and really awesome concepts and sets. 

This cycle, Tyra has the contestants pose in a New York City meat-packing plant.  Wearing slabs of meat.  Granted, the slabs of meat have been carefully constructed to resemble bikini pieces and/or halter tops, and for sanitary reasons they apparently have a flesh-colored inner lining, but still.  It was one of the weirdest and weakest of Tyra's photo challenges yet, out of ten cycles (seasons) put together.  Tyra's explanation?  Sometimes, as a model, you get treated as nothing more than a slab of meat.

Fine, but...that doesn't mean you have to wear it.

So here I am, Ben Hocking, your favorite Comp Sci professor who likes to blog on TPM.  You've seen me.  You know me.  Right?

Wrong.  I'm actually the little baby that runs the Troll-a-thon.

Turns out that, with the new TPM layout, it is ridiculously easy to impersonate another user.

I can't decide if this is a bug or a feature.

p.s.--I have the real Ben Hocking's permission to post this using his photo and handle.

At least, I think it was the real Ben Hocking.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html

Just imagine their kids!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/17/joe-scarborough-walks-off_n_97330.html

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBGyuYKlxIg

Earlier today Josh Marshall wrote a column called Thumbs Down.  In it Josh noted that he was skeptical of Hillary's claimed strength in rural areas  and red states but he seemed somewhat surprised that the politicians from those areas keep coming out for Obama.   Well, perhaps it is because many in those areas see Hillary as being  phony and willing to do or say anything to get herself elected.  Or perhaps they see Hillary as I do.  That is a politician on a power trip who seems to conveniently forget  the pie in the sky promises after they get in power.

In 1993 Hillary Clinton championed health care in America but red tape and lack of enthusiasm seemed to put an end to it.  While Hillary was a force in the SCHIP program, her general health care plan gathered dust until she ran for office in 1999.  Then after election her plan seemed to be tossed aside only to be dusted off again when she decided to run for president in 2007.

Hillary of course claimed to identify with people from rural small town America, such as myself, be she doesn't.  One ad tells us of how her family made and annual pilgrimage to her grandfather's cottage for summer vacation.  How many in small town rural America had a grandfather with a cottage along a lake?  How many in the late 1950's could even afford to take a summer vacation?  It seemed as though everybody was poor back then.  And did you see that cottage?  It looked more like a mansion to many of us who grew up in rural America.  That's strike one.

Hillary needlessly pushes the envelope on truth.  There was absolutely no need for her to lie about her trip to Bosnia.  And when she got caught she tried to pawn it off as a misstatement? No.  It was a lie and she was just trying to make herself look better.   That's strike two.

Finally, Hillary is campaigning against the wrong person.  I realize that this is a primary but Hillary's primary target should be McCain, not Obama.  I for one want to see a Democrat candidate who can successfully get elected without laying waste to the Democrat party.  So far Hillary has praised John McCain while trying to destroy Barack Obama.   Remember what I said about doing anything to get elected? 
Hillary's handling of this election is a lot like Bush's war in Iraq.    That  is attack without cause or provocation, while not knowing who the real enemy is.   Next is to destroy everything possible, regardless of the cost so she can declare Mission Accomplished.  To me that is strike three. 

Like other Democrats from rural America, I'm going all the way with Obama.  That is in my view our only hope to see the real change in direction that a staggering 71% of my fellow Americans still want to see. .

To be honest, I'm kind of sick of NAFTA at this point...but here we go again...

At Toronto's Empire Club of Canada this week, two former US ambassadors to Canada -- one Democrat and one Republican -- debated how concerned Canadians should be that the Democratic candidates are serious about re-negotiating NAFTA.

It was the Democrat, James Blanchard, who told Canadians not to worry, according to Canadian press accounts. 

Blanchard, former Governor of Michigan, is a Michigan state co-chair of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, one of her major "HillRaiser" fundraisers, and served as US Ambassador to Canada during the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has pledged to voters that she will force Canada to re-negotiate the deal or the US will opt out of it.

"I've said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously we'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do," Clinton said during a recent debate. "We will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it.”

But Blanchard seemed to pooh-pooh that bold statement, telling attendees that Democrats are more concerned about China and Mexico than they are Canada.

''Their concern is job loss or unfairness in dealing with countries that have low wage and labor standards and low environmental standards,'' Blanchard said, according to the Canadian Press. ''I have not seen anything that would constitute a threat to trade with Canada."

The story said that Blanchard this week "played down her antipathy toward the free-trade deal, saying she has visited Canada many times and understands the country well."

Conversely, the Republican, former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci -- who served as US Ambassador to Canada for President George W. Bush -- said "there ought to be some concern here in Canada" because both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have "been making some pretty strong statements" against trade agreements such as NAFTA.

The sincerity of the Democrats' opposition to various trade deals has emerged as an issue in the primary season, as the candidates pursue labor union voters in industrial states such as Pennsylvania, which will hold its contest this Tuesday.

An Obama economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian officials and left the impression he was assuring them not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric too seriously.

Clinton, for her part, has claimed to have always opposed NAFTA even though she help promote the trade deal in 1993.

Her campaign adviser, Mark Penn, met with Colombian officials to help promote the Colombian trade deal that Clinton herself opposes. Her husband also supports the deal and was paid $800,000 by a pro-trade Colombian company in 2005 to deliver speeches in which he promoted it.

When Blanchard resigned as Bill Clinton's ambassador to Canada, the Montreal Gazette reported that he "helped pave the way for the so-called "concessions" on labor and environmental issues that gave Prime Minister Chretien a face-saving excuse for dropping his opposition to NAFTA."

Blanchard eventually became a lobbyist, and has represented Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cisco Systems, and Qualcomm. As a HillRaiser he has committed to raising at least $250,000 for Clinton's campaign.

-- jpt

To be honest, I'm kind of sick of NAFTA at this point...but here we go again...

At Toronto's Empire Club of Canada this week, two former US ambassadors to Canada -- one Democrat and one Republican -- debated how concerned Canadians should be that the Democratic candidates are serious about re-negotiating NAFTA.

It was the Democrat, James Blanchard, who told Canadians not to worry, according to Canadian press accounts. 

Blanchard, former Governor of Michigan, is a Michigan state co-chair of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign, one of her major "HillRaiser" fundraisers, and served as US Ambassador to Canada during the administration of former President Bill Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has pledged to voters that she will force Canada to re-negotiate the deal or the US will opt out of it.

"I've said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously we'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do," Clinton said during a recent debate. "We will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it.”

But Blanchard seemed to pooh-pooh that bold statement, telling attendees that Democrats are more concerned about China and Mexico than they are Canada.

''Their concern is job loss or unfairness in dealing with countries that have low wage and labor standards and low environmental standards,'' Blanchard said, according to the Canadian Press. ''I have not seen anything that would constitute a threat to trade with Canada."

The story said that Blanchard this week "played down her antipathy toward the free-trade deal, saying she has visited Canada many times and understands the country well."

Conversely, the Republican, former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci -- who served as US Ambassador to Canada for President George W. Bush -- said "there ought to be some concern here in Canada" because both Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama have "been making some pretty strong statements" against trade agreements such as NAFTA.

The sincerity of the Democrats' opposition to various trade deals has emerged as an issue in the primary season, as the candidates pursue labor union voters in industrial states such as Pennsylvania, which will hold its contest this Tuesday.

An Obama economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, met with Canadian officials and left the impression he was assuring them not to take Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric too seriously.

Clinton, for her part, has claimed to have always opposed NAFTA even though she help promote the trade deal in 1993.

Her campaign adviser, Mark Penn, met with Colombian officials to help promote the Colombian trade deal that Clinton herself opposes. Her husband also supports the deal and was paid $800,000 by a pro-trade Colombian company in 2005 to deliver speeches in which he promoted it.

When Blanchard resigned as Bill Clinton's ambassador to Canada, the Montreal Gazette reported that he "helped pave the way for the so-called "concessions" on labor and environmental issues that gave Prime Minister Chretien a face-saving excuse for dropping his opposition to NAFTA."

Blanchard eventually became a lobbyist, and has represented Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cisco Systems, and Qualcomm. As a HillRaiser he has committed to raising at least $250,000 for Clinton's campaign.

-- jpt

One of the most striking facts I've read concerning gotcha journalism/campaigning is that, in all of the years the "Whitewater" investigation of Hillary drug on, not a single accusation of wrong doing was launched, except, of course, that she had dealings with a man who broke the law. She was Guilty By Association (GBA). But no other charge was even made, much less proven. Obama's got a bunch of GBA's hanging around his neck, and they may be starting to drag him down, not because there's any actual wrongdoing on his part, but because he doesn't respond decisively enough.

He tends to argue against the facts, saying that, for instance, he didn't hear the worst of Wright's hostile, spurious blather. When that didn't work, he said that he was committed to the whole church community and that Wright had done many laudable things that put the lie to his radicalism. Same reaction to the Bitter Blather and the Ayers Associated, Amalgamated Guilt. These arguments can sound defensive to a voting public that should have trouble figuring out the truth. This stuff is confusing. And the problem is not with the facts. It's more subtle than that. It's a logic problem.

I just returned form a conversation with a fairly well educated, pro-Obama voter who was born in Sweden. She kept prefacing her questions about the attacks against Obama with, "I didn't grow up in this country, so I don't understand this stuff." That seemed only defensive to me. The problem was that she couldn't see through the illogic, the flim flam, just as many other well-meaning, probably middle 20 percent of the electorate have trouble.

Obama should only be helping them, not arguing the facts--the facts will abound. And pointing out the illogic doesn't involve trashing his opponents. He can sustain his elevated demeanor but be much more decisive. He just has to play logician and judge instructing the jury, helping people to understand the ploy and how to see through it.

What helped my Swedish-American friend the most was to boil down the attacks to guilt by association. The tricky part of the flim flam is that they sense that we can't help making their case sort of unconsciously, without putting the implicit accusation in play. The implicit accusation is that, in the case of Wright, if Obama won't leave Wright's church, he must agree with Wright. He must be a closet reverse racist. Or he must secretly condone bombing the Pentagon. Or he must secretly degrade low and middle class voters. Making these implicit accusations explicit is a major step toward enlightening people.

I argued then that there is zero proof of these implicit accusations other than the circumstantial evidence that he has some association with Wright, Ayers, and obviously effete folks who could care less about people who hunt and fish. I continued that the people who make these accusations are counting on you to get lost in the aura of guilt they're creating.

Then, If I were Obama, I'd make a speech to on TV with the same tone that Michael Douglas' character had in his role as president in the movie, An American President. Near the end of that movie, he challenged his guilt by association opponent to a debate about character. Obama could say, Either bring on some real evidence against me or stop trying to deceive people.

Furthermore, I'd argue, You're hi-jacking elections. You're grossly deceiving people into making choices based on their vulnerability to the guilt by association flim flam. You're undermining our democracy by creating false choices, by hoodwinking people. Put up with specific charges and evidence, or shut up and find some other way to advance your journalism or political careers.

Do I sound like I'm being defensive, like I'm hiding something. I say to my accusers, Go after me. Find some evidence that I am truly guilty of any of the implied charges. Otherwise, consider that you actually are doing something very wrong. You're hijacking these elections.

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Listen to the Audio here; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html
Function VBGetSwfVer(i) on error resume next Dim swControl, swVersion swVersion = 0 set swControl = CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash." + CStr(i)) if (IsObject(swControl)) then swVersion = swControl.GetVariable("$version") end if VBGetSwfVer = swVersion End Function On Error Resume Next Sub flashObj_FSCommand(ByVal command, ByVal args) Call onFSCommand(command, args) End Sub // By use of this code snippet, I agree to the Brightcove Publisher T and C // found at http://corp.brightcove.com/legal/terms_publisher.cfm. var config = new Array(); /* * feel free to edit these configurations * to modify the player experience */ config["videoId"] = null; //the default video loaded into the player config["videoRef"] = null; //the default video loaded into the player by ref id specified in console config["lineupId"] = null; //the default lineup loaded into the player config["playerTag"] = null; //player tag used for identifying this page in brightcove reporting config["autoStart"] = false; //tells the player to start playing video on load config["preloadBackColor"] = "#FFFFFF"; //background color while loading the player /* * set the player's size using the parameters below * to make this player dynamically resizable, set the width and height as a percentage */ config["width"] = 486; config["height"] = 412; /* do not edit these config items */ config["playerId"] = 1507785431; createExperience(config, 8); On Error Resume Next Sub flashObj0_FSCommand(ByVal command, ByVal args) Call onFSCommand(command, args) End Sub Senator Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.

The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.

"You've been asking the tough questions," Clinton said in April of last year at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event. "You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power."

Clinton's criticism followed MoveOn's endorsement of Obama in early February.

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and It's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Posted today, Friday, right before the PA primary:
what is the purpose of this story?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-ridley/obamas-ayers-issue_b_97477.html

ABC's debate, in my opinion, had an immense bias.  With four days left until the PA primary, keep an eye out for bomb-droppers over the weekend.  Not only in the national media, but also the local PA. stations and newspapers.  
If the past is prologue, they'll be unfound accusations that drop in time for the primary but not in time for them to be discredited.  
I hope there aren't any, but there is a lot on the line here. 

So Hillary wants to be Republican, we need to start treating her like one. 


Article by, Dick Morris April 17,2008
In this week’s debate, Hillary Clinton said all of her “baggage” has been “rummaged through” for years. But important features of her close relationship with known terrorist sympathizers and Hamas supporters are still opaque to the public view.

Her relationship with terrorists began in the mid-1980s when she served on the Board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization, at a time when the PLO was officially recognized by the US government as a terrorist organization.

In 1996, the First Lady initiated an outreach program to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. But, as terrorism expert Steve Emerson noted in the Wall Street Journal: “Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations. A review of the statements, publications, and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy as ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderate.’”

Among these radical groups was the American Muslim Council (AMA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both groups that support Hamas, who attended a White House reception hosted by Hillary in February, 1996. Emerson says that its leaders “have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements, and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad.”

The American Muslim Alliance was headed in the 90s by Abdulrahman Alamoudi who met with Clinton and Gore in 1995. Emerson notes that “Mrs. Clinton [allowed] the American Muslim Alliance to draw up the Muslim guest list for the first lady’s … White House reception.”

Alamoudi, Emerson says was “the primary defender of Musa Abu Marzug, the Hamas political bureau chief responsible for creating the group’s death squads.” Marzug took “credit” when Hamas brigades sprayed machine gun fire into a crowded Jerusalem mall. But less than three days after Marzug was arrested by the FBI in July of 1995, Alamoudi said that Marzug “had never been involved in terrorism” and called his arrest “an insult to the Muslim community. Emerson reports that he “elicited contributions fro Marzug’s defense fund” and called him a “political prisoner.”

Then, Hillary ran for Senate on her own and suddenly it was payback time. On June 13, 2000, the American Muslim Alliance’s Massachusetts Chapter held a very successful fundraiser for her candidacy. Tahir Ali, the chairman of the chapter, said “we must support all who have [Muslim] interests at heart.”

Perhaps conscious of how controversial the contribution would be, Hillary or someone on her staff, tried to pull a fast one, recording the donation on federal filing forms as being from the “American Museum Alliance.” But alert observers weren’t fooled and Senate candidate Clinton was forced to acknowledge who the real donor was and, four months after getting the money, she returned it.

But by then, a few weeks before the election, she had abjured the use of soft money in her Senate campaign, so the donation was, in practical terms, useless, since it was well over the limits for hard money contributions.

The Palestinian terrorists know that Hillary hears their point of view reported on October 7, 2007 that leading terrorists have publicly called for her election. Aaron Klein, WorldNet Daily’s Jerusalem correspondent, wrote, in his wonderful book Schmoozing with Terrorists, Ala Senakreh, West Bank chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terrorist group said “I hope Hillary is elected in order to have the occasion to carry out all the promises she is giving regarding Iraq.”

Senakreh has high hopes for a Hillary presidency. He told Klein “I hope also that she will maintain her husband’s policies regarding Palestine and even develop that policy.

Abu Hamed, leader of the Al Aqsa Brigades in Gaza, noting that “the Iraqi resistance is succeeding,” said that “Hillary and the Democrats call for withdrawal.” Then he added, helpfully, “her popularity shows that the resistance is winning and that the occupation is losing. We just hope that she will go until the end and change American policy.” He explained that “President Clinton wanted to give the Palestinians 98 percent of the West Bank territories. I hope Hillary will move a step forward and give the Palestinians all their rights.”

Clearly Barack Obama should not have stayed in Rev Wright’s church and his campaign should not maintain a “friendly” relationship with William Ayers. But what about Hillary’s service on a board that gave money to a terrorist organization? And her hosting of a terror supporting group in the White House? And her acceptance of a $50,000 contribution from that group? And the statements of terrorists that they are hoping for her to win.

These are far more serious connections than have been established for Obama and either Wright or Ayers.

I just looked at the list of polls... I am SHOCKED that MA and KY would be battleground states.

Your friendly fake consultant has been digging deep into the world of anonymous sources recently, which is why we were able to recently reveal the <a href="http://fakeconsultant.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-taking-one-for-team-or-hillarys.html">truth</a> about Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian sniper story.

Today we take that effort further...which is why we are able to bring to light another exclusive peek into the past of a Presidential candidate...only today it’s Barack Obama.

We will examine his prior associations and as a result we will be able to draw new conclusions regarding his world view...and as we said about Clinton, you might be shocked...but probably not surprised.

How did all this get started?

We decided to investigate these connections following the Reverend Wright incident, because it was clear that America needed to know the entire picture before we made the momentous decision of choosing a President...and as Hillary has reminded us, you are only as good a person as your associates.

So what did we learn?

The first thing we learned was that even as a child Michelle Obama supported the sale of crack.

We were able to determine this because as a child she grew up on the South Side of Chicago...and as we all know, there are people there who go out in the streets and deal that drug.

Since she had to have seen a problem with crack, we have to ask the question: why didn’t she move out of that neighborhood if she did not support the sale of this most pernicious drug. After all, you can’t choose your relatives, but you can choose your pastor...and the place where you live. The fact that she wouldn’t disassociate herself by moving to a wealthier area shows she was unwilling to stand up and say “crack is whack”...and you’re never too young to “just say no”.

But it gets worse.

Through the development of a timeline, we were able to determine that for several years Obama supported the murderous regime of <a href="http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/739/38234">Suharto</a>, the Indonesian President who felt human rights was something that could be worked on later.

How do we know he was actively supporting the Indonesian despot?

He actually<a href="http://www.indonesiamatters.com/1050/barack-obama/"> moved</a> from the US to Indonesia...and stayed there several years. No one would do such a thing if they weren’t entirely supportive of Suharto’s brutal rule.

He also apparently supports the use of biological weapons, including anthrax.

We know this because, as he describes in “The Audacity of Hope” he once visited a Ukrainian biological laboratory—and yet he never denounced the people working there or what they did.

It also turns out he supports robbery, rape and murder.

I determined this because he used to eat at a <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23185402/">White Castle</a> in Chicago which was also the place several robbers, rapists and murderers have eaten over the years—and yet he never once stood up against those people...and never gave up eating, either.

But it gets even worse than that...once, on a trip to Wichita, he ate at a BBQ joint formerly patronized by the <a href="http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/serialkillers/btk.htm">BTK Killer</a>. In fact, it appears that for the past 13 months he has been on a road trip visiting cities where crimes were committed—and never once has he disassociated himself from the thousands of crimes committed in those cities on those days.

The candidate was clearly on the Obama Loves Crime Tour—that’s what he must have been trying to tell us...if not in words, certainly through his actions.

Even now he’s planning a substantial effort in North Carolina in advance of that state’s primary—North Carolina...a former slave state. Despite my efforts, I was unable to determine why Obama supports slavery—and he’s not talking, either.

Forget about the connection between that Weather Underground guy and Obama—there’s an even more direct nexus between Obama and terrorism.

As it turns out, many of the 9/11 terrorists passed through Boston’s Logan Airport—and so has Obama. What could be more incriminating than that?

But if all that wasn’t horrible enough, new evidence has come to light that proves Obama “supports through silence” the slaughter of an entire planet’s population.

Not many know this, but the US Government recently identified several recent UFO sightings as coming from the Griznawoks, a race that lives on a planet near Alpha Centauri. For over 2000 years the Griznawoks have carried out a murderous campaign of intimidation, attack, and finally genocide against their planetary neighbors, the Fazznawaka.

Despite the fact that Obama was present on the planet Earth during the time of the Griznawok visits, he has never once stood up and condemned the Griznawok atrocities...but of course, once the last of the Fazznawaka are dead—who will be left to complain?

So this year, as you’re going to the polls, consider the alternatives: you can support Hillary Clinton...or you can support a candidate who embraces crack, crime—and interplanetary genocide.

I’ve reported...now it’s up to you to decide.

McCain's remarks at the Annual Associated Press Luncheon on 4/14/08, included an extended riff on the awesome wonderfulness of ordinary Americans and the following quote, "As Tocqueville discovered when he traveled America two hundred years ago, they (referring to Americans who presumably were insulted by Obama's "bitter/cling" comments) are the heart and soul of this country, the foundation of our strength and the primary authors of its essential goodness."

When I heard that excerpt from the speech on NPR the next morning I was immediately struck by "the primary authors of our essential goodness" part and thought, this speech writer is trying to insert a subliminal Christian trope and getting it wrong, wrong, wrong. For anyone conversant with the Bible, the word "author" immediately brings to mind Hebrews 12:1, "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith."

Now maybe Tocqueville did use this exact expression but I doubt it and of course the speech does not put any quotes around the words that follow so I could not tell what was name dropping and what was taken directly from Tocqueville. But that is not the point. If this was an intentional attempt to insert a Christian trope, it surely would have Gospels-oriented Christians, especially evangelicals of all stripes, scratching their heads at the (secular humanist) claim that goodness comes from people, and the undifferentiated mass of heartland, sacrificing, "heart and soul" of the country Americans at that.

Obama seems comfortable in his skin about his faith and religious experience and I'm sure it has not escaped the other candidates' attention that this may to his great advantage with voters for whom their faith is a central part of who they are. I don't want to give advice to McCain's speech writers but trying to insert a word here and there from scripture is a risky business. So now I'm on a Christian trope watch because I know they won't be able to resist.

Much of McCain's remarks were flattery--really, really big time kissing up to--the folks out there who might have taken offense at Obama's off-the-cuff speculation about the hot button issues choices made by people suffering hard times but McCain's over-the-top praise seemed more condescending to me. I started this blog because I heard the excerpt and thought, boy this is some serious pandering. When I read the transcript of McCain's prepared remarks all the way through I found this quote in the last paragraph,"The time for pandering and false promises is over." Maybe I could take that to mean, "I've pandered here and now I'm done." Don't we wish!

I also advise the McCain's speech writers to forget Tocqueville. Like scripture, his actual writings could come back to haunt.

As a Caucasian, and long time friend of Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, I am angry and dismayed that the "swift boaters" have used Wright to spead their campaign of fear and prejudice in an effort to undercut Barak Obama's credibility.  If the members of the churches I served had left the church when I said things that were "hard to hear" or went against their particular position on  issues, I would have preached to empty pews.  But, like Wright, I never had to do that.  If  the Biblical prophets Amos and Jeremiah, and for that matter Jesus  Himself, had preached "mamby-pamby" and innocuous stuff we would never have heard of them.
Amos, like Wright, preached at a time of great trouble and distress to people who were comfortable and certain about their place in life.  Their preaching was meant to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.  It has been my experience that Jeremiah Wright has "not only talked the talk, but walked the walk."  His leadership at Trinity Church has transformed the entire neighborhood on Chicago's southside.  Countless people have been given new hope and new direction.  The outreach to the poor and disinfrancished is incredible.  Programs abound, and there is joy in all they to.  As I've said a number of times, if I lived in Chicago, Trinity is where I would go to Church. 
One cannot be a prophet (or for that matter a preacher) unless there is anger in ones gut.  I have that anger.  I have no problem agreeing with most everything Jeremiah Wright has said except that I don't buy into his "conspiracy" theory about HIV/AIDS, but if were an African American, I might.  What Wright preaches is certainly far more faithful to the prophetic traditions of the Judaeo-Christian perspective and, for that matter, Islamic teachings as well, then the heresies put forward each week in the pulpits of persons of the genre of  which Falwell and his ilk are examples.
There is no relationship whatsoever between what Wright says and the qualifications of leadership possessed by Barack Obama.  Obama is a discerning person who is open to possibilities.  The whole issue shows the desperation of those who are racist, xenophobic, homophobic, classist, and just plain unable to see beyond there own personal selfish interests.  The real tragedy is that while the "swift boating" continues the media "fiddles."
We may be at the point in the life of this Country when we are where the Romans were at the time of Nero.
It is Obama's genius that he is keeping hope before us and suggesting the we have a new opportunity to change conditions and be faithful, not only to the vision of the founders of our Country, but to the important justice issus raised by both latter day and present persons committed to improving the quality of life for all people. 
 

You'd think Pennsylvania is the only state in America.
All this excitement and suspense--four days of non-stop spinning, bomb-dropping, and hacking away until the primary WE haven't all been waiting for but the Clintons have.   
Why is it that the entire nation and MSM only get transfixed on the states the Clintons say are so critical to winning the nomination?  
The Obama campaign has always known Hillary would take Pennsylvania.  Likely, in a big way.  
It's one state in a nation that's already leaning toward Obama.  
Every state is critical, but before you buy the propaganda that a democratic nominee MUST win certain states, certain voters, and beat the republicans in others, keep in mind that old models of demographics and red states and blue states and percentages of independents needed has been changing rapidly.  
There are millions of democrats and independents and even some republicans that are going to be voting for the first time in 2008.  
And hundreds of millions of people are going to ask themselves if they're better off now than they were in 2000.  
The answer to that isn't good news for John McCain.  
We all seem to have this larger than life fear of what used to be the omnipotent indestructible Republican majority.  
We shouldn't underestimate them, and their tactics, but they are more fragile than you think.  

I'm a newby to blogging and have never before written a full post, but after sifting through a variety of exchanges about the whole flag pin issue, there's something I believe is going unsaid, or at least going undeveloped.

On its surface, the question of why Obama "refuses" to wear a flag pin is clearly a flimsy, manufactured wafer of a controversy, one which is parasitic upon the kind of political symbolism and image-production that has facilitated the degeneration of political discourse, undermined critical thinking, and helped to erase the already tenuous line between MSM and propaganda (the same production of symbolism that Bush and Co. have more or less successfully crafted ever since they first hired Hollywood directors to stage their media appearances back in 2000.)

But I think the flag-pin issue actually speaks to something essential about Obama and the importance of his candidacy: he understands what is so perverse about a political culture where a fashion accessory, more patronizing than patriotic, can carry more meaning than supporting a range of policies that threaten to undermine our country. (And by "undermine our country," I mean everything from undercutting whatever "moral leadership" we may ever have enjoyed, to sacrificing the types of civil liberties and human rights that are purportedly our country's founding principles, to severely weakening our economy, to failing to provide our citizenry with proper health services and quality education, to increasing the exploitation of our natural wildernesses, to throwing our federal government's own balance of powers into disequilibrium, to compromising the ability of our military to be effective in cases where it's actually needed, etc.)

If Obama's decision to not wear a flag pin has any relevance whatsoever, it is that he understands how bad the past 8 years (at least) have been for the overall health of our country, and he is challenging the meaning of "patriotism" by contesting the vapid yet insidious political symbolism that has substituted the image of a flag for true concern over the path of our nation.

One last thought: like many, I remember in the few days that followed 9/11 not just the sense of collective shock, vulnerability and grief, but also the warmth that complete strangers extended to one another as a gesture of healing. I've never seen people in East Coast cities so outgoing and friendly, so willing to break with insularity and smile or talk to whomever. That genuine mourning, and all its promise of civic fellowship, was a beautiful moment amidst chaos that was soon supplanted by a frenzy of compulsory flag-mongering that exuded compensation for weakness and silenced real conversation. At least so far, the chaos seems to have won.

How I wish that my country could be the country of those first few days. Thankfully, there's every reason to think that Obama shares that vision.

The official Daily Show announcement.

So here's something:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaISUGw1l4w

Josh,
I too am an admirer of Bob Reich.  I agree that his endorsement isn't a sudden defect from Clinton politics.  I think this is an important point itself.  Why aren't the Robert Reich's, the Bill Richardson's, Janet Napolitano's, etc. etc. not marching lock-step with the Clintons now?  The same reason I'm not.  I supported the Clintons in the '90's.  I have good memories of their administration.  However, I felt incredibly betrayed by Bill with the Lewinsky deal.  I think he pushed the country into the arms of the GOP.  I felt betrayed by Hillary in the run-up to war and her pandering to conservatives.  I think many on the Clinton team in the '90's feel the same things I do, even more acutely because of the personal betrayal they experienced.  This doesn't negate the good they did, but please, let's drop the Jesus and Judas complex  people (read Carville).

I have seen repeated MSM references to FactCheck.org this election cycle as a non-partisan organization, most recently on a CNN blog attacking Obama's comments on John McCain's 100-years pledge with a bit of extra gusto.  So I thought I better do a little fact checking on FactCheck myself.  They say:

We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in

SO I've been told that Obama has been under attack, and this is unfair. I read it hourly on the posts and responses to my posts and in the news.

But this is where I stand apart from the bloggers here.

(Although I must say that there are many folks I've been talking to in the last few days who like me, had been diehard Obamaites and now are feeling a little let down.)

These are not attacks. At least not the questions and doubts themselves... as I've said, Gibbons and Elaphant-pants-opolis beat these issues to death. Why do I feel that the people who are saying these things - and interestingly enough, beating them to death - are only willing to focus on what they already decided would be their agenda coming into this?

Obama never answered why he doesn't wear a flag pin; I'd call his not wearing it an adamant refusal. So I'd like to hear why. It's probably inconsequential, but I still want to hear why. He side-stepped the issue at the debate, and that smacks of politics as usual.

Worse, his Heartland comments and then his insistence on justifying them are possibly excusable, but only if he shows himself to be the best candidate by far, because then we'd be willing to overlook the errors. But I think that distinction is slipping away from him.

The rural perspective is near and dear to my heart. Perhaps I've lost the right to speak for the rural slice since I live in Philadelphia now, but I yearn to break these sullied bonds and get back out to the country. And I have many, many family who like to wear overalls and straw hats (I mean that literally, not condescendingly,  by the way.)  The point is Obama can't afford to dismiss them, and he's been doing that.

And I'm more than a little uneasy about his  - well, for want of a better word - "whining". It's not really, shall I say, presidential. Lately he's been sneering at Hillary's performance in the debate  - and that's just juvenile.

Not only is he sneering. His support base is sneering. We sneer, they sneer, we all feel comfortable in our sneering. We shout and jeer and holler to "Move on!" and let these silly things rest. But we don't let them rest, either.

Why, oh why, can't we see this??

I desperately want to believe in him. For several months, I did. I was whoopin' and a-hollerin' from atop the band wagon. The point is, I thought he was the only answer. Now he's merely the best choice of many flawed people - and I've been there before.

Obama - please listen!!!!!!

This list is to help you call your local undecided Superdelegates as per Slouch's recommendation on his recent post.  I sorted this from wikipedia's list.

AK; Blake Johnson; DNC; State Vice Chair
AK; Cindy Spanyers; DNC;
AL; Joe Turnham; DNC; State Chair
AL; Nancy Worley; DNC; State Vice Chair
AL; Bud Cramer; Representative;
AR; Lottie Shackelford; DNC; DNC Vice Chair
AZ; Don Bivens; DNC; State Chair
AZ; Gabrielle Giffords; Representative;
AZ; Harry Mitchell; Representative;
CA; Edward Espinoza; DNC;
CA; Inola Henry; DNC;
CA; Carole Migden; DNC;
CA; Bob Mulholland; DNC;
CA; Christine Pelosi; DNC;
CA; John Pérez; DNC;
CA; Robert Rankin; DNC;
CA; Crystal Strait; DNC; Young Dems of America
CA; Art Torres; DNC; State Chair
CA; Keith Umemoto; DNC;
CA; Steve Ybarra; DNC;
CA; Howard Berman; Representative;
CA; Lois Capps; Representative;
CA; Jim Costa; Representative;
CA; Susan Davis; Representative;
CA; Sam Farr; Representative;
CA; Bob Filner; Representative;
CA; Mike Honda; Representative; officially DNC Member - DNC Vice Chair
CA; Jerry McNerney; Representative;
CA; Nancy Pelosi; Representative; officially DNC Member
CA; Pete Stark; Representative;
CA; Henry Waxman; Representative;
CO; Pat Waak; DNC; State Chair
CO; Roy Romer; DPL; Former DNC Chairman
CO; Bill Ritter; Governor;
CO; John Salazar; Representative;
CO; Mark Udall; Representative;
CO; Ken Salazar; Senator;
CT; Nancy DiNardo; DNC; State Chair
CT; John Olsen; DNC;
CT; Joe Courtney; Representative;
DA*; Christine Marques; DNC; Dems Abroad Chair
DA*; Theresa Morelli; DNC;
DC; Anita Bonds; DNC; District Chair
DC; Donna Brazile; DNC;
DC; Larry Cohen; DNC;
DC; Christine Warnke; DNC; Nat'l Dem. Ethnic Coord. Comm.
DE; John Daniello; DNC; State Chair
DE; Harriet Smith-Windsor; DNC; State Vice Chair
DE; Joe Biden; Senator;
DE; Thomas R. Carper; Senator;
GA; Richard Ray; DNC;
GA; Jimmy Carter; DPL; Former President
GA; Jim Marshall; Representative;
GU; Antonio Charfauros; DNC; Territory Chair
GU; Cecilia Mafnas; DNC; Territory Vice Chair
GU; Robert Underwood; DNC;
GU; Madeleine Bordallo; Representative; Congressional Delegate
HI; Dr. Marie Dolly Strazar; DNC;
HI; Joshua Wisch; DNC; State Vice Chair
HI; Beverly Withington; DNC; State Chair
HI; Mazie Hirono; Representative;
HI; Daniel Akaka; Senator;
IA; Scott Brennan; DNC; State Chair
IA; Richard Machacek; DNC;
IA; Bruce Braley; Representative;
IA; Tom Harkin; Senator;
ID; Keith Roark; DNC; State Chair
IL; Edward Smith; DNC;
IL; Rahm Emanuel; Representative;
IN; Joe Donnelly; Representative;
IN; Brad Ellsworth; Representative;
IN; Baron Hill; Representative;
IN; Pete Visclosky; Representative;
KS; Larry Gates; DNC; State Chair
KS; Helen Knetzer; DNC; Nat'l Fed. of Dem. Women
KS; Nancy Boyda; Representative;
KS; Dennis Moore; Representative;
KY; Moretta Bosley; DNC;
KY; Jennifer Moore; DNC; State Chair
KY; Nathan Smith; DNC; State Vice Chair
KY; Steve Beshear; Governor;
KY; Ben Chandler; Representative;
LA; Elsie Burkhalter; DNC; State Second Vice Chair
LA; Claude "Buddy" Leach; DNC;
LA; Chris Whittington; DNC; State Chair
LA; William Jefferson; Representative;
LA; Charlie Melancon; Representative;
LA; Mary Landrieu; Senator;
MA; Debra Kozikowski; DNC;
MA; James Roosevelt Jr; DNC;
MA; Edward Markey; Representative;
MA; John Olver; Representative;
MA; John Tierney; Representative;
MA; Niki Tsongas; Representative;
MD; Michael Cryor; DNC; State Chair
MD; John Gage; DNC;
MD; Lauren Glover; DNC; State Vice Chair
MD; Belkis Leong-Hong; DNC;
MD; Heather Mizeur; DNC;
MD; Gregory Pecoraro; DNC;
MD; John Sweeney; DNC;
MD; Susan Turnbull; DNC; DNC Vice Chair
MD; Steny Hoyer; Representative;
MD; John Sarbanes; Representative;
MD; Chris Van Hollen; Representative;
MD; Ben Cardin; Senator;
ME; Jennifer DeChant; DNC;
ME; Sam Spencer; DNC;
ME; Tom Allen; Representative;
ME; Michael Michaud; Representative;
MN; Collin Peterson; Representative;
MO; Jay Nixon; Add-on;
MO; Robin Carnahan; DNC; Dem. Asso. of Sec. of State
MO; Maria Chappelle-Nadal; DNC;
MO; Leila Medley; DNC;
MO; John Temporiti; DNC; State Chair
MO; Yolanda Wheat; DNC; State Vice Chair
MO; Ike Skelton; Representative;
MS; Wayne Dowdy; DNC; State Chair
MS; Carnelia Pettis Fondren; DNC; State Vice Chair
MS; Gene Taylor; Representative;
MT; Margarett Campbell; DNC; State Vice Chair - Endorsed Obama 07/Apr/08 forced to retract due to party rules
MT; Dennis McDonald; DNC; State Chair
MT; Brian Schweitzer; Governor;
MT; Max Baucus; Senator;
MT; Jon Tester; Senator;
NC; Dr. Jeanette Council; DNC;
NC; Jerry Meek; DNC; State Chair
NC; Muriel Offerman; DNC;
NC; David Parker; DNC;
NC; Carol Peterson; DNC;
NC; Mike Easley; Governor;
NC; Bob Etheridge; Representative;
NC; Mike McIntyre; Representative;
NC; Brad Miller; Representative;
NC; Heath Shuler; Representative;
ND; David Strauss; DNC; State Chair
NE; Steven Achelpohl; DNC; State Chair
NE; Audra Ostergard; DNC; State Vice Chair
NH; Ray Buckley; DNC; State Chair
NH; John Lynch; Governor;
NJ; Philip D. Murphy; DNC; National Finance Chair
NJ; Rush Holt; Representative;
NJ; Frank Lautenberg; Senator;
NM; Brian Colon; DNC; State Chair
NM; Tom Udall; Representative;
NM; Jeff Bingaman; Senator;
NV; Yvonne Gates; DNC;
NV; Sam Lieberman; DNC; State Chair
NV; Catherine Cortez Masto; DNC; Dem. Attorneys Gen. Assoc.
NV; Harry Reid; Senator; officially DNC Member
NY; Ralph Dawson; DNC;
NY; Irene Stein; DNC;
NY; George Mitchell; DPL; Former Senate Majority Leader
OH; Joyce Beatty; DNC; Dem. Legislative Campaign Comm.
OH; Enid Goubeaux; DNC;
OH; Chris Redfern; DNC; State Chair
OH; Marcia Kaptur; Representative;
OH; Dennis Kucinich; Representative;
OH; Tim Ryan; Representative;
OH; Zack Space; Representative;
OH; Betty Sutton; Representative;
OH; Charlie Wilson; Representative;
OH; Sherrod Brown; Senator;
OK; Jim Frasier; DNC;
OK; Kalyn Free; DNC;
OK; Ivan Holmes; DNC; State Chair
OK; Mike Morgan; DNC; Dem. Legislative Campaign Comm.
OK; Jay Parmley; DNC;
OK; Brad Henry; Governor;
OK; Dan Boren; Representative;
OR; Bill Bradbury; DNC; Dem. Asso. of Sec. of State
OR; Frank Dixon; DNC; State Vice Chair
OR; Jenny Greenleaf; DNC;
OR; Wayne Kinney; DNC;
OR; Gail Rasmussen; DNC;
OR; Meredith Woods-Smith; DNC; State Chair
OR; Peter DeFazio; Representative;
OR; David Wu; Representative;
OR; Ron Wyden; Senator;
PA; William George; DNC;
PA; Jason Altmire; Representative;
PA; Bob Brady; Representative;
PA; Chris Carney; Representative;
PA; Mike Doyle; Representative;
PA; Tim Holden; Representative;
PR; Luisette Cabanas; DNC; Territory Vice Chair
PR; Eliseo Roques-Arroyo; DNC;
RI; Jack Reed; Senator;
SC; Gilda Cobb-Hunter; DNC;
SC; Wilbur Lee Jeffcoat; DNC; State Vice Chair
SC; Jim Clyburn; Representative;
SC; John Spratt; Representative;
SD; Cheryl Chapman; DNC; State Vice Chair
TN; Vicki Harwell; Add-on;
TN; Jerry Lee; Add-on;
TN; Dr. Inez Crutchfield; DNC;
TN; Gray Sasser; DNC; State Chair
TN; Al Gore; DPL; Former Vice President
TN; Phil Bredesen; Governor;
TN; Lincoln Davis; Representative;
TN; Bart Gordon; Representative;
TN; John Tanner; Representative;
TX; Linda Chavez-Thompson; DNC; DNC Vice Chair
TX; Al Edwards; DNC;
TX; Jaime Gonzalez Jr.; DNC;
TX; David Hardt; DNC; Young Dems of America
TX; Denise Johnson; DNC;
TX; Robert Martinez; DNC;
TX; John Patrick; DNC;
TX; Betty Richie; DNC;
TX; Boyd Richie; DNC; State Chair
TX; Robert Schwarz Strauss; DPL; Former DNC Chairman
TX; Nick Lampson; Representative;
TX; Ciro Rodriguez; Representative;
UT; Helen Langan; DNC; Previously supported Clinton
UT; Jim Matheson; Representative;
VA; C. Richard Cranwell; DNC; State Chair
VA; Alexis Herman; DNC;
VA; Joe Johnson; DNC;
VA; Jim Leaman; DNC;
VA; Jerome Wiley Segovia; DNC;
VA; Jim Webb; Senator;
VI; Carol Burke; DNC;
VI; Marylyn Stapleton; DNC; Territory Vice Chair
VT; Howard Dean; DNC; DNC Chairman
WA; Ed Cote; DNC;
WA; Eileen Macoll; DNC; State Vice Chair
WA; Sharon Mast; DNC;
WA; David McDonald; DNC;
WA; Dwight Pelz; DNC; State Chair
WA; Rick Larsen; Representative;
WA; Jim McDermott; Representative;
WI; Awais Khaleel; DNC; College Dems of America
WI; Lena Taylor; DNC; State Vice Chair
WI; Paula Zellner; DNC;
WI; Herb Kohl; Senator;
WV; Nick Casey Jr.; DNC; State Chair
WV; Alice Germond; DNC; Secretary
WV; Joe Manchin; Governor; officially DNC - Dem. Gov. Assoc.
WV; Alan Mollohan; Representative;
WV; Robert Byrd; Senator; officially DPL
WY; Nancy Drummond; DNC; State Vice Chair
WY; Cynthia Nunley; DNC;

He must have known it was a trap. Hillary grinning like a Chelsire cat and looking like she knows what ordeals lie ahead, and George Stephanopoulus, the indentured Bill Clinton apparatchik and media hitman, flanking his vision. The ratings have gone through the roof, the world is watching. The bear baiting starts, the bloodiest political inquisition this season unfolds in tortuous slo-mo, as one by one, the feared sadistic political contraptions - flagpins, Terrorist, Wright, 9/11 - are trotted out.  Like most of you, I could feel my anger welling up like a percolating volcano. The torrent of letters, emails, calls to ABC, the MSM and blogosphere all attest to the collective revulsion. Amidst the uproar, a slew of reviews unanimously panning Obama's tepid, deflated performance and handing the trophy to Hillary suggest that he's lost this battle. Is he frail and vulnerable after all? Can he withstand the onslaught of McCain the White and the Republican Orgs this November? It slowly dawns on me that Obama may have lost this battle and the ratings but won the war. By taking it on the chin to the point where it becomes too painful for *us* to watch, eliciting nausea (someone blogged about throwing up@), turning most of us physically ill, we, the audience, start screaming for this Rovian-boarding to stop. If this was Obama's strategy all along, it has to be bloody brilliant. Had he spoken out early and forcefully to cut this line of attack short, he would have won hearty cheers and applause, but nary a commendation and certainly not a nation-wide outrage like we're witnessing now. And Hillary can boast smugly about her impenetrable skin, "rifled baggage" and repetitious Republican "vetting".  As the protests well to a tsunami, it not only makes Hillary look like Rumsfeld in drag, Rove is probably breaking out in cold clammy sweat at the outpouring of unchained, stinging voter bitterness. Limbaugh, seized by uncontrollable paroxysms, downs fistfuls of valium. Has McCain put out word he's shopping for new campaign advisors yet? The talk is now about "Gotcha!" politics as voters, sick of the dirt-mongering, demand that the candidates, media and the debates turn to *issues*, and of course Obama is ready there for them. This is not only designed for a Hillary Clinton knock-out, it's a pre-emptive strike against his much more formidable and unscrupulous foes in November, all by not lifting a finger, yet the plates are shifting. We are a gathering storm demanding accountability from the political and media elite, let's not rest, but press on, summoning fellow voters to raise voices in unison, lest the ailing country succumbs to more of the same toxic political filth. Obama may be Taoist, even if he might not have heard of the Way. In a Taoist story I recounted on another blog, http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/my-82-year-old-mothers-debate.php Cook Ting, a master of the knife said, "A good cook changes his knife once a year - because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month - because he hacks...However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I'm doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest of subtlety, until -flop! The whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground. I stand there holding the knife and look all around me, completely satisfied and reluctant to move on, and then I wipe off the knife and put it away." ... This principle of seeing the overall structure, seeing the way of least resistance and then using the least effort for the maximum returns, leads ultimately to the principle of wu wei, which can be translated as 'inaction', 'not doing' or 'not striving'. A fellow poster, Slouch, summed up with quotes from the Tao Te Ching 36: If you want to shrink something, you must first allow it to expand. If you want to get rid of something, you must first allow it to flourish. If you want to take something, you must first allow it to be given. This is called the subtle perception of the way things are. The soft overcomes the hard. The slow overcomes the fast. Let your workings remain a mystery. Just show people the results.

Operation Chaos is the conservative talk radio ploy
to incite non democrats to trespass into the democratic
primary and offset the votes of true democrats.
This is cheating and worse.  Any tampering of any aspect
of our election process is opening a dangerous door.

Crowds flock for early NC voting in Charlotte.

Four years ago, about 50 showed up the first day; this time the tally was more than 300. The day even featured a mid-afternoon traffic jam around the Central Piedmont Community College polling site as voters hunted places to park. And the numbers will only grow as more early-voting sites open around Charlotte and the state.

http://www.charlotte.com/politics/story/586194.html

The Clinton campaign said that they would release their March fundraising numbers on the 20th, however, the 20th is a Sunday, and the FEC rules clearly state you cannot file a FEC report on a weekend, so the fundraising numbers should be reported today. Will TPM press on the Clinton campaign to release their FEC report today?

I see that the Clinton campaign had to amend their July 2007 numbers earlier this week on 4/13/08. Surely they can get in their March 2008 numbers now, can't they?